Rachel Mitchell, a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona that questioned Christine Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, doesn’t believe Ford’s claims would be taken to court by any “reasonable prosecutor” based on the evidence.
Thought President Donald Trump was willing to give Senate Democrats and RINO Republican Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) a limited in time and scope investigation by the FBI into the allegations, he told the media, “I’m guided by the Senate. I want to make the Senate happy, because ultimately they’re making the judgment. I’m not making the judgment.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but it’s at great expense to the American people and to Judge Kavanaugh.
As for Mitchell, she provided Republican senators with her “independent assessment” of Ford’s allegations. She ultimately concluded that Ford’s case was far weaker than a typical “he said, she said” case.
Trending: The New Political Agenda
“Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Not only did Mitchell not the discrepancies in Ford’s account of the alleged assault from previous versions, but said that she had not been consistent in the account.
Among the discrepancies were the timing of the alleged assault. For instance, she told the Washington Post on July 6, 2018 that it occurred in the “mid 1980s.” On July 30, 2018, she sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stating that it occurred in the “early 80s.” She also said on September 16, 2018 that it occurred at the age of 15 and later, according to the Washington Post’s review of her therapists notes from 2012, she claimed it occurred during her “late teens.”
How can we put it gently? The woman is lying.
“Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name,” Mitchell wrote.
Only her husband claims that she identified Kavanaugh during the therapist meetings, but there is no record of that. Why? Because it isn’t true? Probably.
“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account,” added.
Ford doesn’t remember where it took place or how she got there. Furthermore, Ford “does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”
Clearly, she was driven, but she can’t even account for that or who took her home. Yet, she can somehow remember locking herself in the bathroom, then hearing Kavanaugh and Judge bumping into walls going downstairs and claiming they were talking to people though she said she could not hear the conversation. Mitchell caught her in that lie openly.
“Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy,” Mitchell wrote. “Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”
Mitchell also pointed out that strangeness of the fact that Ford remembers little details unrelated to the alleged assault while not remembering specific details of the assault.
Ms. Mitchell also said that there was no corroboration of Ford’s story, even by the woman she claims was there who was her friend, Ms. Leland Keyser.
In a statement to the Judiciary Committee, Keyser said that she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
Her counsel followed up with a statement on her behalf to the committee that, “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
While there is no doubt that Democrats will claim that Mitchell’s assessment is political and partisan while ignoring the obvious political hit they and Ms. Ford are involved in, Mitchell addressed that in her memo.
“No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release,” Ms. Mitchell said, “and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them.”
Everything that has come out points to the fact that Ford’s allegations are false and that she is part of a political attack on Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
While I am against confirming Kavanaugh on a host of constitutional issues and past involvement in the Vince Foster coverup which have nothing to do with these allegations, to attack his character without evidence in this manner is nothing short of criminal. He doesn’t deserve this at all and Ford should be sued, but that isn’t going to happen. Nope, despite her obvious manipulation in her testimony and lack of credibility and corroboration, Ford will go down as simply another Anita Hill. As such, she sets another bad precedence for women who are actually sexually assaulted and can name their attackers, have their stories corroborated and provide credible witnesses and evidence.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.