Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford in Hearings Dismantles Her Testimony in 5-Page Memo
Although many people could tell based on the plain facts we’ve been given about the accusations Dr. Christine Ford has made against Brett Kavanaugh that there was nothing in her claims that would hold up in a court of law, the prosecutor who questioned Ford in Thursday’s closely-watched hearings has outlined exactly why she would not bring charges against Kavanaugh.
While the new #MeToo is “I believe Christine Blasey Ford”, those who proudly proclaim this have nothing more to go on than their own personal biases, because her accusations hold no water legally.
Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell outlined Ford’s case against Kavanaugh in a 5-page memo released Sunday, which she called “even weaker” than a “he said, she said” scenario.
In her memo, she explained:
This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations,
based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience
as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. This memorandum does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Chairman, any committee member, or any other
senator. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, 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. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a
political or partisan person
She explained that, while the confirmation hearings were not a court of law, she is a prosecutor, so she approached the case in a legal, not political context, and it was in this context that she made her determination of Ford’s claims:
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
Her memo goes on to break down the numerous points that weaken Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, such as:
- The numerous accounts Ford gave to others of the alleged assault in which she did not name Kavanaugh
- The many inconsistencies in Ford’s account of the alleged assault
- Ford’s lack of memory of key details of her account of the alleged assault
- The conspicuous lack of any additional witnesses that can corroborate Ford’s testimony
- Ford’s failure to remember not only key details about the assault but details about who she told and when, casting more doubt on her memory
- The influence of congressional Democrats and Ford’s attorneys on Ford’s account (see timeline below)
Here’s the “timeline” referred to in Mitchell memo: pic.twitter.com/mhY3Dif8bD
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 1, 2018
