Joke. Partisan hackery. TPM shouldnât have even acknowledged that it was published.
What a relief! Thank goodness we brought the women-folk in to examine these witnesses. Pack it in, boys, Mitchell says Brettâs innocent.
âŚJesus Christ, these people.
Pro-rape Republican finds in favor of rapist judge whose reputation she is paid to absolve.
The fact that she produced this ridiculous report purporting to be a conclusion when she was a paid partisan advocate proves everything we need to know about her. She should not be a prosecutor either.
WTF⌠who is asking anyone to bring a case against Kavanaugh. The bottom line is that Kavanaughâs behavior is not fitting for any judge, especially not a Supreme Court justice. One sex offender on the court is more than enough
Mitchell this is not a criminal investigation, one would need a properly conducted investigation if charges were to be brought.
This was about someone trying to get the word up the chain of command that this nominee needed to be investigated. Witnesses needed to be interviewed, subjects needed to be interviewed, and then Senators needed to ask questions.
What we have here is a nominee dancing around the truth, lying, and being helped by Senators from one party.
Mitchell you were used, and I hope that you enjoy that ETTD effect. (I wonder if she was their 1st choice, or how many turned their fellow Republicans down before they landed on her?)
Wouldnât a reasonable prosecutor also question the accused? Mitchell was only allowed two rounds with Kavanaugh before the spooked senators yanked her off the job. And what does it say about the GOP that they figure a quiet examination of the facts is a weaker defense than Kavanaughâs dry drunk shouting?
Mitchellâs analysis is factually incorrect. Mitchell says âDr. Ford failed to explain
how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular
year.â This is false. Ford explained under questioning that she was able to narrow it down based on when she got her driverâs license (in 1983). She said that, once able to drive, she would have driven herself to the party. But she did not, so it must have happened before then, hence 1982.
Mitchell: âThe investigationâs not over but, I wouldnât bring charges. See, Iâm a GOOD Republican!â
Who exactly refuted her allegations? I know Kavanaugh made that claim, but factually I donât think anyone other than Kavanaugh and Judge, the two people accused, refuted her allegations. No unbiased prosecutor would speak like this.
Of course no reasonable prosecutor would charge Kavanaugh on the basis of Fordâs testimony alone. That is why prosecutors use detectives to build cases by piling up evidence. This is a totally none story.
A thirty six year old charge of sexual assault is difficult to make. It doesnât mean Ford is lying. It just means evidence needs to be painstakingly assembled and human memories are fallible 36 years on.
On Thursday I thought she was just a hapless pawn. Active accomplice is such a bad look, but Iâm sure she was paid well.
And no, you hack, none of the other witnesses refuted Dr. Ford. They all claimed, absent evidence or cross-examination, that they had no memory of the incident.
Many years ago I had a sexual encounter with a guy I had a crush on. It was totally consensual and it took place during a party. We left the party and walked to a secluded space in a nearby park. I remember thinking âWhat if I changed my mind? Would he let me leave?â That thought has stayed with me for more years than Fordâs experience in 1982. Hereâs the thing: I have absolutely no doubt who the guy was. I also remember some strange specifics about the place. I know we returned to the party. But I have zero memory of the date, the exact location of the party, and how I got there and left. (It was too far to have walked and I rarely took buses at night in the city I lived in then.) If it had turned violent and the person was now in line for an important position and I wanted to say something, I would have found myself in exactly her position. And I also know that Rachel Mitchell would have accused me of lying.
Prosecutors make political decisions all the time about the credibility of witnesses and their likelihood of success in winning a conviction. Prosecutors also make deals with rapists and others to plead guilty to lesser charges. They are not some unpolitical people standing above the fray. She was hired to prosecute Ford, not to be an impartial questioner. In fact the moment that she noted the likely date of the attempted rape, she was unceremoniously relieved of her duties and Graham and Kavanaugh started ranting and raging. She sat there like a potted plant for the rest of the hearing and now she accuses Ford of lying but says nothing about Kavanaughâs lying and completely unhinged behavior.
Did Judge refute the allegations or did he just make the standard I donât remember statement, a safe statement from a âblackoutâ drunk
They are probably paying her by the hour. Every new dribble of âassessmentâ is an attempt to actually be compensated for standing by and watching the GOP circle jerk.
No one is attempting to charge Brett Kavanaugh with a crime.
Whether a prosecutor would press charges based on Fordâs testimony is beside the point.
Heâs being evaluated for elevation to the Supreme Court, and anyone in the past who had someone claiming that he got drunk and violently assaulted her, especially together with multiple others corroborating that he was a belligerent drunk (not to mention him corroborating the belligerent part in real time in front of the committee!) would be dropped like a red hot ingot. Disqualified in seconds.
How did we get from there into whether her testimony is enough to start charging him criminally? Wrong criterion to evaluate it on.
Bingo. Do prosecutors ever bring charges without conducting an investigation?
Joe: John stabbed me.
Mitchell: How do you know he stabbed you? What do you mean by âstabbed?â Who paid your medical bills? How did you get to the emergency room? How did you get home from the emergency room? In your letter, you said he âshankedâ you â why and when did you decide to change it to âstabbed?â [Etc.]
Mitchell, getting up from the table immediately after the interview: I canât charge John with attempted murder based on this interview.
Ya think?
Kavanaugh has not been charged, heâs been interviewed for a job on the Supreme Court. And most of the world would conclude that he failed that interview.
Who has refuted Dr. Fordâs testimony besides Kavanaugh and his defenders, including her?
We should wait for the FBI report after they interview Kavanaughâs accomplice.
In the meantime, I hope she shows more compassion when she is handling child victims.
Which is why most sexual assault cases never are reported. Nobody will investigate, or listen. This process was a sham to start with and continues to be so.