Connect with us

News

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford in Hearings Dismantles Her Testimony in 5-Page Memo

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.

Published

on

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.

Trending: 38 People May Face Criminals Charges Now That State Dept. Has Completed Probe Into Hillary’s Emails

In her memo, she explained:

take our poll - story continues below

Has Adam Schiff committed fraud and treason concerning the Trump probe?

  • Has Adam Schiff committed fraud and treason concerning the Trump probe?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

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)

 

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Kamala Says Giuliani Broke ‘Many Laws,’ Then Admits She Doesn’t Know Which Ones (Video)

So, which is it?

John Salvatore

Published

on

This guy is connected to Donald Hitler Trump. Of course he broke many laws. Which ones? How should I know, Anderson? I’m just out here saying whatever liberals want me to say. I don’t even really know why I’m running for office! That’s my Kamala Harris impression. Spot on, right? LOL. The California progressive has no shot at earning the Democrat nomination. Like all other Dems, Kamala talks and talks but has no real answers for any question. How can you say a man broke “many laws” and then not know which laws he broke? Is this a case of guilty before proven innocent? Sure sounds like it. From Daily Wire: Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris claimed during a Friday interview on CNN that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had “broken many laws,” but, when pressed on what specific laws she thinks that he has broken, Harris struggled to give any examples. Harris appeared on “Anderson Cooper 360°” where she was asked about recent reports alleging that Giuliani is under federal investigation over his business dealings in Ukraine after two men that he was allegedly connected to were arrested by federal authorities. WATCH: Kamala Harris claims that Rudy Giuliani has “broken many laws” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asks her what laws he has broken Harris responds: “Well, I, I, I don’t know” https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1185379995130175488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1185379995130175488&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fharris-claims-giuliani-has-broken-many-laws-cant-name-any Check out Kamala getting told off by an elderly woman… From Daily Wire: An elderly woman living in a nursing home blasted Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) over her health care plan on Monday during a campaign stop at the Bickford Senior Living Center in Muscatine, Iowa. WOMAN: “Can I ask you a question? I understand that you are advocating health care for everyone.” Harris: “Yes, ma’am.” WOMAN: “Who’s going to pay for it?” HARRIS: “Well, we’re…

Continue Reading

News

Trump Scraps G-7 Meeting At His Doral Resort, Blasts Media & Dems for ‘Irrational Hostility’

A win for the left?

John Salvatore

Published

on

President Trump wanted to host next year’s G-7 Summit at his resort in Miami. That’s not happening anymore. As with all things Trump, the left had a conniption. What POTUS did was avoid a future headache. Trump made it clear on Twitter on Saturday night how upset he was with Dems and the mainstream media for causing yet another uproar. He also noted that this arrangement would have come at “ZERO COST to the USA.” But, it’s a done deal. Game over. No G-7 at Doral. 45’s tweets: I thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders. It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have… https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185726930764611589 …..its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives. I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185726931611852802 ….Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately. Thank you! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185735579327193093 More from Fox News: Trump first made the suggestion to have the 2020 G7 at his Doral resort in August at the 2019 summit in France, sparking controversy over the ethics of a president profiting off an official government event. One day after Mulvaney’s announcement, a trio of Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation to block the president from hosting next year’s summit. Reps. Lois Frankel from Florida, Bennie…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend