Many Republicans did not like the way experienced sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell handled her part of the questioning of Christine Blasey Ford last week, but her final report is devastating. It clearly shows the glaring holes in her testimony and after reading it, one can only assume that Ford is a liar.
Mitchell’s essential assessment is that no “reasonable prosecutor” could bring a case against Brett Kavanaugh based on Ford’s testimony. Mitchell added that her assessment is based on her independent review of the evidence and nearly 25 years of experience. She also alleged that “the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Mitchell added that Ford’s case is even weaker than most:
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: 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. For the reasons discussed below, 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.
Here are some of Mitchell’s bullet points on Ford’s failed testimony:
- Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened
- 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.
- Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
- Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.
- Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent
- Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
- Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
- Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
- 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.
And, no, I refuse to put “Dr.” before Christine Blasey Ford’s name. Just as the AP notes, Ford does not qualify to be called a “doctor.”
Here is Mitchell’s full report:
Mitchell Memo by on Scribd
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com