Prosecutor From Kavanaugh Hearing Produces Devastating Memo And Timeline: Activities Of Congressional Democrats And Attorneys For Accuser ‘Likely Affected’ Her Account
Prosecutor From Kavanaugh Hearing Produces Devastating Memo And Timeline: Activities Of Congressional Democrats And Attorneys For Accuser ‘Likely Affected’ Her Account By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine
Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor that the GOP brought in to question Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her back in the 1980s, has produced a five-page memo, along with a four-page timeline of events, which has rocked D.C., and the liberal media. (Memo and timeline is embedded in the article)
While we will briefly highlight some the categories within Mitchell’s memo, the truly devastating aspect and the least reported of the 9-page document, is the timeline which is devastating to both congressional Democrats and Ms. Ford’s attorneys as Mitchell concludes that their actions “likely affected” Ford’s account of what she alleges happened some 36 years ago.
The memo itself is damaging to the tale, or tales, Ms. Ford has told over the course of the past couple of months, from her letter to Senator Diane Feinstein to the accounts that she offered the media, to her official testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Mitchell highlights a number of inconsistencies with Ford’s story, with her bottom line stated at the beginning: “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.”
Mitchell divides her memo into different categories, starting with Ford’s inconsistent account of “when” the alleged assault occurred, where Mitchell provides six bullet points:
• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the ‘mid 1980s.’
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the ‘early 80s.’
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one ‘high school summer in early 80’s,’ but she crossed out the word ‘early’ for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the ‘summer of 1982.’
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her ‘late teens.’ But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.
Other categories with bullet points include; Dr. 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; Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account; Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended — including her lifelong friend; Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault (One of Mitchell’s bullet points under that category was to highlight Ford’s “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent); Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory; Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
In the first five pages, under each category, Mitchell documents Ford’s conflicting accounts, her lack of explanation for the inconsistencies, the lack of any key details, and Ford’s claims of not remembering certain recent events, such as whether or not she showed the Washington Post reporter her therapy notes, which the Wapo reporter claimed she did and Ford claiming she didn’t remember.
The media has largely focused on that portion of Mitchell’s report, with liberals claiming the prosecutor produced a “partisan” document, rather than a legal analysis of her questioning and Ford’s evolving story, but the last four pages of the 9-page document is what caught my eye, especially she made it her last category before offering a charted timeline of events.
Category: The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account. Then the documentstates “See the included timeline for details.”