BREAKING: Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in NEW REPORT!
After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.
It appears that Rachel Mitchell finds Ford's allegations totally suspect, potentially fraudulent pic.twitter.com/3dJkIGPxri
— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 1, 2018
Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a non-partisan third-party with more than 25 years’ experience prosecuting sex crimes in the state of Arizona, carefully reviewed the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including hours of testimony, and has released a report on the matter. In the report, Mitchell points out more than a dozen glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s account and paints the accusations as potentially fraudulent.
Mitchell’s points out several points, including:
- “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
- “Dr. Ford 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.”
- “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.”
- “She does not remember in what house the alleged assault took place or where that house was located with any specificity.”
- “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”
Rachel Mitchell reaches the conclusion that ““A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”
In perhaps her most damning finding, Rachel Mitchell writes that “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorney’s likely affected her account”. Mitchell ostensibly alleges that the maneuvering of congressional Democrats, and the actions of her attorneys, who acted more like handlers, influenced her account of events, and perhaps even her truthfulness. This may have come out as Mitchell’s lines of questioning were repeatedly interrupted by her attorneys, namely Michael Bromwich, who also represents Andrew McCabe.
Rachel Mitchell sums up her report on Page 2, in saying “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.”