Evidence doesn't support claims against Kavanaugh, prosecutor says

[chuckiechan]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...s-against-kavanaugh-prosecutor-says/23547150/

(NBC)

In the memo, which was sent to all Republican senators and was obtained Sunday night by NBC News, Rachel Mitchell, the deputy county attorney in charge of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona, said her "bottom line" was that "a 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove."

"But this case is even weaker than that," Mitchell wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them."

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee," she wrote.

Also, the Maryland PD of the city she claims she thinks it happened in, invited her to file a report as there is no statute of limitations for sexually assault in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ey-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

So now it's time for her to fish or cut bait. And it is time for the FBI to subpoena Go Fund Me records to see if her sudden windfall is the result of principally one or two big donors, AKA "Go Launder a Bribe for Me".

 

[Winston]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...s-against-kavanaugh-prosecutor-says/23547150/



Also, the Maryland PD of the city she claims she thinks it happened in, invited her to file a report as there is no statute of limitations for sexually assault in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ey-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

So now it's time for her to fish or cut bait. And it is time for the FBI to subpoena Go Fund Me records to see if her sudden windfall is the result of principally one or two big donors, AKA "Go Launder a Bribe for Me".

Why didn't the GOP Senators let her finish probing Kavanaugh?

 

[chuckiechan]

Why didn't the GOP Senators let her finish probing Kavanaugh?

Because there is a deadline for the vote and there is no point in dragging the game out.

Confirm him and move on.

 

[Winston]

Because there is a deadline for the vote and there is no point in dragging the game out.

Confirm him and move on.

Okay well they cut her off before she could get anywhere.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...s-against-kavanaugh-prosecutor-says/23547150/



Also, the Maryland PD of the city she claims she thinks it happened in, invited her to file a report as there is no statute of limitations for sexually assault in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ey-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

So now it's time for her to fish or cut bait. And it is time for the FBI to subpoena Go Fund Me records to see if her sudden windfall is the result of principally one or two big donors, AKA "Go Launder a Bribe for Me".

It's not a criminal proceeding. It's a job interview. No one that has credible claims of sexual assault that come up during the hiring process gets the job. Moreover, no one that throws an unhinged, yelling, crying fit during the interview could ever hope to get the job they are interviewing for.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why didn't the GOP Senators let her finish probing Kavanaugh?

Let who finish probing Kavanaugh? Ms. Mitchell?

Where does this belief that she had not finished probing Kavanaugh come from? Television images of "badgering" a witness out of "Law and Order?"

I watched the interview, and provided a copy of the video with a start and end time of Ms. Mitchell's question period in a couple of other threads in the Forum.

She asked him clarification questions and then asked him point blank specific questions if he did things alleged by his accuser. He made a plain statement of "No" in answer to each allegation.

She handled Ms. Blasely-Ford in the exact same way.

What more is expected? What kinds of "probing questions" were needed? How hard is it to accept a simple and direct "NO!" in answer to specific "Did you..." questions given under oath?

 

[Irwin Corey]

Mitchell was hired to ...

1) To insulate the GOP Senators on the committee from any backlash from the questioning.
2) To appear to be sympathetic and ask softball questions.
3)To follow up with a hit piece that totally discredits Ford.

… she was predisposed to come to her conclusions.<--period

 

[Winston]

Let who finish probing Kavanaugh? Ms. Mitchell?

Where does this belief that she had not finished probing Kavanaugh come from?

I watched the interview, and provided a copy of the video with a start and end time in a couple of other threads in the Forum.

She asked him clarification questions and then asked him point blank specific questions if he did things alleged by his accuser. He said made a plain statement of "No" in answer to each allegation.

What more is expected? What kinds of "probing questions" were needed? How hard is it to accept a simple and direct "NO!" in answer to specific questions?

I think it was right before the Lindsey Graham meltdown. She was asking about that party on his calendar where Ford placed over half his guests. How would Ford know about a guy named PJ that was on his calendar if she never went to a party with Kavanaugh?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I think it was right before the Lindsey Graham meltdown. She was asking about that party on his calendar where Ford placed over half his guests. How would Ford know about a guy named PJ that was on his calendar if she never went to a party with Kavanaugh?

What meltdown?

 

[Winston]

What meltdown?

The meltdown.

 

[Fenton]

Mitchell was hired to ...

1) To insulate the GOP Senators on the committee from any backlash from the questioning.
2) To appear to be sympathetic and ask softball questions.
3)To follow up with a hit piece that totally discredits Ford.

… she was predisposed to come to her conclusions.<--period

Can you rebut ANYTHING she wrote in her analysis ? I'm betting NO.
I'm betting you haven't even read it

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think it was right before the Lindsey Graham meltdown. She was asking about that party on his calendar where Ford placed over half his guests. How would Ford know about a guy named PJ that was on his calendar if she never went to a party with Kavanaugh?

What?

How would YOU know the name of some random kid back in your school days? Ford admits she went to an all-girls school that frequently "associated" with Kavanaugh's all boys school. She could remember a "P.J." under all sorts of other circumstances...and yet P.J. Smythe states that he was not present at any such party.

How did she remember her friend Ms. Keyser? Ms. Keyser ALSO denies any knowledge of such a party.

Access to school yearbook's on and off the internet might be one source. Asking friends who went to school might be another way of "refreshing a memory."

Apparently, as I pointed out above, her memory was wrong about their presence at such a party. :shrug:

 

[Winston]

What?

How would YOU know the name of some random kid back in your school days? Ford admits she went to an all-girls school that frequently "associated" with Kavanaugh's all boys school. She could remember a "P.J." under all sorts of other circumstances...and yet P.J. Smythe states that he was not present at any such party.

How did she remember her friend Ms. Keyser? Ms. Keyser ALSO denies any knowledge of such a party.

Access to school yearbook's on and off the internet might be one source. Asking friends who went to school might be another way of "refreshing a memory."

Well, they didn't let the prosecutor keep tugging at that thread where Ford placed over half of the guest at the party. A bit too scared she was getting close to the truth.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Well, they didn't let the prosecutor keep tugging at that thread where Ford placed over half of the guest at the party. A bit too scared she was getting close to the truth.

Spend some time in a courtroom. Unless proceedings are closed, the public is welcome to sit in.

You'll find that handling witnesses testifying is not as "dramatic" as you see on television.

Even if a prosecutor or defense attorney tries to "tug" a witness, an objection of "asked and answered" will typically arise.

Ms. Mitchell in her role assigned at the hearing treated BOTH Kavanaugh and Blasely-Ford equally, and IMO fairly.

I believe this was why she was chosen? So "angry old white men" would not badger Ms. Blasely-Ford?

Senators, as shown by the behavior of the Democrats, are not so constrained by the standards and experience of trial attorneys.

 

[chuckiechan]

It's not a criminal proceeding. It's a job interview. No one that has credible claims of sexual assault that come up during the hiring process gets the job. Moreover, no one that throws an unhinged, yelling, crying fit during the interview could ever hope to get the job they are interviewing for.

There are thousands of appointees you don't hear about that can be treated in this same manner. As a matter of fact, the commercials are already being outlined on Corey Booker as a sexual assaulter, and Kamela Harris's early life. There will be more. This process does not end with democrats and Kavenaugh. Now is the time to call "foul" or "Get ready to rumble". The left is operating outside the lines of "Advise and consent" in the constitution and are trying to whore out "due process" along the way by convincing pin heads that this is a "job interview" like at the local Piggly Wiggly.

I don't expect you to agree. You are in the "Stop Trump progress at any cost by any means necessary".

So moooooving right along now.

 

[chuckiechan]

Okay well they cut her off before she could get anywhere.

You guys have already said you are going to impeach him anyway along with Trump, so why do you still care?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well, they didn't let the prosecutor keep tugging at that thread where Ford placed over half of the guest at the party. A bit too scared she was getting close to the truth.

They really jumped in when Kavanaugh was pinned down about his altered diary entry for the Ist of June. Could that have been the day? We never got an answer because that's when the realyy psycho interventions began from the Gop senators, who couldn't bring themselves to question the woman accuser, but were all too ready to buddy up with the accused. It was so blatant.

 

[VanceMack]

There IS no evidence. Hell...the only 'evidence' of anything happening at ALL is in Fords world. None of the other alleged participants can even remember a gathering occurring. SHE cant be sure what YEAR it allegedly occurred, let alone month or day. She cant remember WHERE the gathering occurred, how she got there, or how she got home. Hell...even her 'friend' doesnt remember the gathering or at least you would think the friend would remember that Ford was at SOME gathering of just 7 people (well...first it was 4, then 5, then 6, now 7 including Ford) were attending but suddenly the only other girl at the party vanished...that wouldnt stand out to you if it actually happened? You wouldnt ask your ';friend' the next time you saw her where she went or what happened?

Come on....

evidence???? What 'evidence'???

 

[chuckiechan]

What?

How would YOU know the name of some random kid back in your school days? Ford admits she went to an all-girls school that frequently "associated" with Kavanaugh's all boys school. She could remember a "P.J." under all sorts of other circumstances...and yet P.J. Smythe states that he was not present at any such party.

How did she remember her friend Ms. Keyser? Ms. Keyser ALSO denies any knowledge of such a party.

Access to school yearbook's on and off the internet might be one source. Asking friends who went to school might be another way of "refreshing a memory."

Apparently, as I pointed out above, her memory was wrong about their presence at such a party. :shrug:

Her memory is absent. No recollection of how she got there, no recollection of where "there" was, no recollection of anything.

I believe she was on an acid trip and never left her bedroom. And by Spartacus's lynch mob's standard of proof, that's as good as her charges against Kavenaugh.

They really jumped in when Kavanaugh was pinned down about his altered diary entry for the Ist of June. Could that have been the day? We never got an answer because that's when the realyy psycho interventions began from the Gop senators, who couldn't bring themselves to question the woman accuser, but were all too ready to buddy up with the accused. It was so blatant.

It's a good thing he didn't note in there "Test drove a Ford"!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

There are thousands of appointees you don't hear about that can be treated in this same manner. .

Total Bull****. How many Trump appointees have been confirmed without credible accusations of sexual assault? The vast, vast, vast majority, that is how many. I am 42 years old and have never been accused of sexual harassment or assault. Why? Because I have never done it. There are hundreds of qualified judges for SCOTUS that have not been credibly accused of sexual assault.

 

[KLATTU]

T There are hundreds of qualified judges for SCOTUS that have not been credibly accused of sexual assault.

Including this one.

The accuser can't say where it happened, or when it happened. Sshe can't say exactly who was there. The peole she said were there and witnessed said they didn't.She's changed her story.
On what bizzaro world planet is that a 'credible" accusation??

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Including this one.

The accuser can't say where it happened, or when it happened. Sshe can't say exactly who was there. The peole she said were there and witnessed said they didn't.She's changed her story.
On what bizzaro world planet is that a 'credible" accusation??

It was 35 years ago. Her accusation is very consistent with the account that survivors of sexual assault will give in that they typically do not remember details about exact time and so on, but they will remember exactly what was done to them and who did it.

 

[Renae]

Mitchell was hired to ...

1) To insulate the GOP Senators on the committee from any backlash from the questioning.
2) To appear to be sympathetic and ask softball questions.
3)To follow up with a hit piece that totally discredits Ford.

… she was predisposed to come to her conclusions.<--period

Yes because the Democrats have been so open minded about this process... right?

 

[Renae]

It was 35 years ago. Her accusation is very consistent with the account that survivors of sexual assault will give in that they typically do not remember details about exact time and so on, but they will remember exactly what was done to them and who did it.

And yet..

No one can say they were at the party
She has nothing to go on but her version of events

Judge Kavanaugh has contemporaneous documentation of his whereabouts from the time in question that greatly cast doubt on her claims.

She has... a memory that cannot proved or disproved on it's own, and no one has stepped up to say they remember said gathering.

Ergo by ANY fair measure, this should be dismissed and Judge Kavanaugh cleared loudly and publicly.

 

[MrShangles]

Okay well they cut her off before she could get anywhere.

She talked to damn slowly, they all had 5 minutes, I felt the same about her questions for Ford, she spent first 2 rounds asking about where she lives and such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk