New Report: Sex Crimes Prosecutor EXONERATES Kavanaugh

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell says she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh in a new memo… Exactly how much coverage of this report do you believe will be given by the MSM? None, Zero. Zilch. Nada… Democrats aren’t interested in a “preponderance of the evidence.”

After a careful review of all of the evidence put forth 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.

TGP:

Trending: Dem Rep Complains To Indian-Born Google CEO: I Call Tech Support & Get Somebody I Can’t Understand

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:

  1. “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
  2. “Dr. Ford struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
  3. “When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
  4. “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.”
  5. “She does not remember in what house the alleged assault took place or where that house was located with any specificity.”
  6. “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.”

Rachel Mitchell’s Analysis by on Scribd

Fox News:

Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week, wrote in a memo released late Sunday that there were inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony and that — given the information at hand — she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell, who was hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist Republicans, addressed the letter to “All Republican Senators,” and said no senator approved the memo. She noted in the assessment that she is a Republican, but said she is not a political person.

She identified Ford’s case as an example of “he said, she said,” and said her case is “even weaker than that.” More

Avenatti Says He Has Been Encouraged By DNC Leadership To Run For President
Previous post

Avenatti Says He Has Been Encouraged By DNC Leadership To Run For President

Sen. Tom Cotton: Feinstein To Be Investigated Over Leaked Letter From Ford
Next post

Sen. Tom Cotton: Feinstein To Be Investigated Over Leaked Letter From Ford

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.