As I watched the Kavanaugh hearing where the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell grilled Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, I was not overly impressed. I thought that Mitchell went far too easy on Ford. Perhaps things are not always what they seem and I underestimated the woman.
Mitchell just made a stunning admission and the Democrats are shockingly silent over it… for now, that is. Mitchell is the sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to do the questioning during the hearing last week. She told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom and that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.
The testimony did not even rise to the level of he said, she said according to Mitchell. I agree with that assessment. But I do think Mitchell could have tripped up Ford on many more facts than she did, thus cementing her lack of credibility here. Mitchell spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present.
“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn’t even seek a search warrant.
Mitchell’s admission is critically important because it could still sway squishy Republicans who are still on the fence over all this. Although thanks to Jeff Flake, Murkowski and others, the FBI will be tasked with looking into Kavanaugh for a week. I contend they should also look into Ford while they are at it.
“While both individuals provided a compelling testimony, nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation,” Corker said in a statement, referring to Kavanaugh and Ford. And that is the crux of the whole matter.
Kavanaugh adamantly denied the allegations leveled against him by Ford, calling the process a “national disgrace” and a “circus.” “The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process,” Kavanaugh said in his opening statement. “But you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy.” He’s absolutely right.
“Mitchell wrote in the memo that she was presenting her “independent assessment” of the allegations. She said this was based on her independent review of the evidence and her nearly 25 years of experience. She alleged in the document that “the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
“She said she was not pressured to write the memorandum and it did not necessarily reflect the views of any other senator or committee member. “While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person,” she wrote.
“Mitchell added, “There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”
“Mitchell wrote that a “‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them….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.’”
Mitchell gave her professional reasons for her conclusions: Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
-When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
-Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.
-Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended – including her lifelong friend.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.
-Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
-Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
-Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
-The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
Mitchell provided multiple examples to back up her claims here. She is an award-winning sex crimes prosecutor in Arizona. The prosecutor’s office has employed Rachel Mitchell for more than two decades. If she says that she would not take this to court and that the case is flimsy in the extreme, I believe her. Shame on the Republicans for giving the FBI a week. It’s time to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.