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: