Big Government: Rachel Mitchell, the veteran sex crimes prosecutor chosen by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, has filed a report that points out Ford’s inconsistencies and apparent deceptions.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line,” she writes. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence.”
She adds, “Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” This means Ford’s story does no reach the 50-50 level of more likely than not.
On Sunday, Breitbart News published an extensive list of Ford’s inconsistencies, including the fact she told the Committee she is afraid to fly when the truth is that she flies frequently for both business and pleasure. Mitchell’s report is even more comprehensive, with nine different general objections (marked with underlined text) substantiated by dozens of contradicting claims and unanswered questions.
Ford’s deviations in her timeline about when the assault occurred are important. Did the event occur in the “mid-eighties” or “early-eighties,” was she in her “early teens” or “late teens,” and why did she cross out the “early” in “early 80s” in the statement for her polygraph report?
Mitchell lays it all out:
- “In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the ‘mid 1980s.’”
- “In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the ‘early 80s.’”
- “Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one ‘high school summer in early 80’s[.]’”
- “[Then] she crossed out the word ‘early’ for reasons she did not explain.”
- “A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the ‘summer of 1982.’”
- “The Washington Post “article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her ‘late teens.’”
- “But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred.”
Ford’s timeline of the trauma she claims the event left her raises questions:
- “She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.”
This is relevant because her final two years of high school were the two years immediately after the event.
Mitchell moves on to lay out how Ford’s version of what happened has been every bit the moving target as the timing of the event. “When speaking with her husband,” Mitchell writes, “Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
- “Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a ‘sexual assault’ before they were married.”
- “But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of ‘physical abuse’ at the beginning of their marriage.”
- “She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.”
Now it is an attempted sexual assault.
Mitchell explains that Ford’s “inability to remember” where the house where the event took place “raises significant questions.” As does her inability to remember how she “got from the party back to her house.” Read the rest
As suspected. She’s toast.
Remember this is obamas FBI.
Duhhhhhhh… Amazing how much milage the self described “party of science” can get by by using just emotion
I didn’t believe she was credible after she stuck her middle finger up her ass!
#IDontBelieveValleyGirls
Have her lawyers explained to her that she can be successfully sued for slander?
I’m certain that the newly re-appointed FBI Special Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, assigned to the Kavanaugh inquisition, will quickly and fairly reach their conclusions on Kavanaugh’s guilt by Friday’s deadline!
They asked us to give them the House, and we gave them the House. They asked us to give them the Senate, and we gave them the Senate. They asked us to give them the Presidency, and we gave them the Presidency. And the repugnecant’s still cave to the enemy.
Big chief say “White woman is more full of crap than Buffalo Herd”
I hope the Judge sues her and the Dimwit party for 12 figures.
Don’t want to go totally off subject, but the Dem’s keep saying this is a job interview.
Isn’t it the Dem’s who are pushing for no criminal background questions to be allowed on job applications these days? Especially if something happened concerning a minor? My guess is that rule only applies to certain groups.
To aleon: We did not give “them” the Presidency, we gave “them” Trump. Big difference. Now we need to give “them” more conservatives.
Wonder how much Ms Mitchell was paid to “interview” Ford and compose a report based on what we already knew from a little digging and social media?
Wanna bet the FBI unearths even less than crowd sourced info?
@MJA:
Heh! Specifically, she’s creamed chipped beef on toast.
Better known as S.O.S. for “shit on a shingle.”
Remember that facts are irrelevant and immaterial. It is all about the feelings.
It is to Ms. Fords benefit that Judge Kavanaugh is seated on the court. If he fails, so do her opportunities to cash out bigley… no book deals and no speaking fees.
Those GoFundMe accounts will make nice down payments when the defamation and slander suites are heard