Senate Hearings for Kavanaugh SCOTUS nominee

Well, it was Dr. Ford's day to testify before the Senate on Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and, whoa, was it a flurry of fallacies!

From Chairman Grassley's (Senator Yosemite Sam) opening barrage of well-poisoning to Sen. Lindsey Graham's post interrogation angry kyoodling.

Basically, Graham's argument was obviously peppered with his own confirmation bias, but more pointedly aimed at (his) friends on the other side of the aisle: "God help us if we have to do more interviews."

Overall, he's arguing against Dr. Ford's compelling testimony based on a proposed hypothetical harm to Senatorial precedence.

Can anyone name the fallacy?

Over generalization of the topic key points makes this question irrelevant to any discussion.

Accepted. The details were far too general for brevity sake. Let's see if I could do better.

X denies the veracity of a witness's recent allegations based on scant evidence.

Y calls for further investigation of said evidence.

X turns angry, begins screaming and threatening Y claiming that further investigations will lead to
irreparable harm to the witness and the future demise of an otherwise fair deliberative process.

What fallacies are behind X's stentorian threats?