Kavanaugh’s accuser wants FBI probe before she testifies
WASHINGTON — Christine Blasey Ford wants the FBI to investigate her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before she testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week, her lawyers said in a letter sent Tuesday to the panel.
The lawyers wrote that Ford, who is now a college professor in California, wants to cooperate with the panel. But in the days since she publicly accused Kavanaugh of the assault when they were teens at a party 35 years ago, she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats.” Her family has relocated, they said.
An FBI investigation “should be the first step in addressing the allegations,” the lawyers wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.
The development comes as President Donald Trump showered sympathy on his embattled Supreme Court nominee and as Senate Republicans and Democrats fought determinedly over who should testify at a high-stakes hearing on the allegation just six weeks before major congressional elections.
Democrats have said they wanted more time for the FBI to investigate — and more witnesses besides Kavanaugh and Ford, hoping to avoid what would turn into merely a “he-said-she-said” moment. Those witnesses would include Kavanaugh’s high school friend Mark Judge, who Ford said was in the room when she was assaulted, but Judge said no. Kavanaugh has denied Ford’s allegation, and Judge says he doesn’t remember any such incident.
Trump: Declassified Russia probe papers expose ‘bad things’
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is flexing his executive power to declassify secret documents in the Russia investigation, an extraordinary move he says will ensure that “really bad things” at the FBI are exposed. But the decision, made against the backdrop of Trump’s spiraling outrage at the special counsel’s Russia investigation, may expose sensitive sources and methods and brush up against privacy law protections, experts say.
The order is likely to further divide the president from the intelligence agencies he oversees and raises new concerns that Trump is disclosing government secrets for his own political gain. Critics of the move say the president has a clear conflict by trying to discredit an investigation in which he himself is a subject.
“This radical policy choice is not being made on traditional policy grounds. It’s being made on conflicted grounds,” said David Kris, a former Justice Department national security division head. “That’s problematic.”
The Justice Department says it’s begun complying with the order, though it’s not clear when the documents might be released. It’s also unclear if the multi-agency review now underway might find ways to try to withhold certain information or limit whatever damage, such as outing sources or scaring off would-be ones, that may arise from the release.
Trump and Republican supporters want the records out in hopes they’ll reveal law enforcement bias in the early stage of the Russia investigation and prove the probe was opened without good reason.
Chicago cops reluctantly testify against their own
CHICAGO — The Chicago police officers clearly do not want to be in court testifying against a colleague accused of murder, with one of them so uncomfortable he couldn’t bring himself to point to the man on trial, something witnesses are routinely asked to do.
But one after another — whether they want to or not — officers who were at the scene the night of Oct. 20, 2014, when white officer Jason Van Dyke emptied his gun into black teenager Laquan McDonald, are being called to testify, as prosecutors seek to chip away at the “blue wall of silence” long associated with the city’s police force and other law enforcement agencies across the country.
None of the officers has criticized Van Dyke in testimony over the first two days of his trial, but each has bolstered the contention by prosecutors that what Van Dyke did was “completely unnecessary.” Van Dyke’s attorneys say he feared for his life and acted according to his training.
Those testifying in Van Dyke’s murder trial have included his partner that night, Joseph Walsh, one of three officers indicted on charges that they conspired to cover up what happened to protect Van Dyke. While video released more than a year after the shooting shows McDonald veering away from officers, Van Dyke and others on the scene initially said the 17-year-old had lunged at them with a knife.
Walsh, who is no longer on the force, acknowledged Tuesday that he “could have” fired, before answering, “Yes,” to the question of whether he chose not to. But he also defended his partner’s actions, saying he was “confident officer Van Dyke took necessary action to save himself and myself.” And he maintained that he saw McDonald raised his right arm to swing it “in our direction,” even though video of the shooting that played as he spoke doesn’t show that. He maintained that he had a different vantage point.
By wire sources
