Mitchell's report to Senate Judiciary Committee on Christine Ford

[jimnyc]

---

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.

http://www.dpimagehosting.com/images/2018/10/01/14vbRAX.png
http://www.dpimagehosting.com/images/2018/10/01/U5OKMNL.png

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.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-sex-crimes-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-completely-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh-in-new-report/

[Elessar]

Yet Dr. Ford claimed this supposed attack "Was seared in her memory". Remember that?
"Seared in her memory".

I see that statement as a bald-faced lie! She could not recall anything of note, but
it is "Seared in her memory".

Yeah, Right!:laugh:

[jimnyc]

And the retarded Democrats are still out there talking about just how credible "Dr." Ford is. I say doctor, as records simply don't back her up on that either.

They are already talking about an investigation by the House, because it's important to fully investigate the "serious and very credible" accusations of "Dr. Ford". Idiots. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, in the real world... Pretty much NOTHING backs up her account, some of it actually denied by others. And actually, the majority of her crap is actually proven to be incorrect or lies. And the Dems still want to delay based on this, or try to impeach down the road? WTF?

So is she really "Dr."? Why was her bio page updated within the past 10 days, and "Psychologist" removed from her page?

---

HERE is the COMPLETE LIST of Inconsistencies and Lies that Prove Christine Ford’s Accusations Against Judge Kavanaugh Belong in a Trash Heap

Dr. Christine Ford flew from California to the east coast this month to testify against conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Ford said she was afraid to fly but now we know she has flown all over the Pacific Ocean and the United States for work and vacation.

Christine Ford says she is a California psychologist but her name is not in the state database (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/psych-out-is-christine-ford-a-doctor-there-are-no-records-to-prove-this-in-state-of-california-database/) and Stanford scrubbed her bio page earlier this month. (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/holy-crap-christine-fords-stanford-bio-page-was-altered-updated-10-days-before-hearing/)

The rest of her social media presence is still a mystery — meaning it is likely full of far left filth.

Christine Ford told Congress, the Washington Post and her far left activist lawyers she had memories of Kavanaugh when she put a second front door on her home in 2012 but photos of the property show the door was installed before 2011.

And there is also a record of business operating out of the same address which would explain a second door.

And her current charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continue to evolve by the day.

Christine Ford’s testimony to Congress was littered with lies and inconsistencies.

Of course, the liberal media once again is ignoring the truth.

John Nolte from Breitbart.com has listed the many facts that discredit Dr. Ford’s testimony and her credibility.

-She has aligned herself with the far-left.
-She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.
-She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.
-Her polygraph is a farce.
-Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.
-Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.
-Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.
-Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.
-Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
-In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”
-Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).
-To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?
-Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline. She testified she saw him working there 6-8 weeks after the attack. She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some bizarre reason Ford and her mother entered the Safeway using different doors. (And now mom can’t confirm this happened!)
-Five times during her testimony she mentioned Safeway to verify the date. How could she know such a thing unless it really happened? Well, in his memoir (which began circulating online among Kavanaugh critics in the week before Ford’s testimony) Judge helpfully reveals he was working at the “local supermarket” during the “summer before senior year.”
-In summation: On top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh, so too do the notes taken by her own therapist. (Margot Cleveland’s tweet thread was indispensable for much of this — you will want to readit all (https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046219137285070848).)

Dr. Ford’s allegations are not only not credible — they are ludicrous, a joke.

Attorney Margot Cleveland listed a number of questionable statements from Ford’s testimony.

And Arizona Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Ford under oath, later told Republican Senators there is no way she would prosecute Judge Brett Kavanaugh based on the testimony by Christine Ford.

The liberal media and FOX News pundits believe this woman is “very credible.”

There is NOTHING credible about this woman, her story, or her testimony that left her dry-eyed and without need of a single tissue.

America is better than this.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/here-is-the-complete-list-of-inconsistencies-and-lies-that-prove-christine-fords-accusations-against-judge-kavanaugh-belong-in-a-trash-heap/

[jimnyc]

And this is what they're talking about in Attorney Margot Cleveland’s response to all of this:

------

Let me ask you something. If a woman came forward and said that she was sexually assaulted in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 by one boy, with a second in the room egging her on, and to corroborate her claim she pointed to small portions of notes from a therapist 1/

2/ which said that she described a "rape attempt" in her LATE teens that involved 4 boys AND in her first text describing the attempted rape, the women said it happened in the mid-80s, what would you think? That the notes did NOT corroborate her account. But Ford has tricked

3/ everyone into ignoring the differences in dates (82 is not MID-80s) and age (15 is not LATE-teens) and to assume that Ford was telling her therapist about the supposed Kavanaugh attempt. BUT in her handwritten note before the polygraph she crossed out "early" before 80s. WHY?

4/ Well Ford testified she later figured out that it was summer of 1982 b/c she knew she wasn't driving at the time and always drove once she got her license. (BUT how since she doesn't know how she got home?) BUT why would she go into detail with therapist and convey late-teens

5/ And two things bothered me about Ford's testimony (well more than two but two things the connect up to this point). Ford DWELLED on the Safeway connection and Mark Ford. So much so that she raised it in a portion that made no sense and was forced. She was asked if her note

6/ to Feinstein was accurate & corrected two things and then said oh, but look, I ran into Mark Judge at Safeway about 6 - 8 weeks AFTER attack and you can look at when he worked there to narrow down the date of the attack. Now that made no sense to me. Had a couple threads on

7/ that earlier. HOW would that narrow it down. She KNEW (supposedly) it was in summer of 82 and Mark Judge would have presumably worked at the store for some time so how would you know which day she ran into him. And then 6 - 8 weeks back? Come on, that doesn't help AT. ALL.

8/ Since w/o an actual date no one can figure anything out any better than early summer which is what she had seemed to say. And then she bothered to tell that whole story about going in a separate door than her mom. Why? So mom couldn't confirm. AND she mentioned Safeway

9/ not once as a way to figure out the date BUT 5 TIMES! And 2 Dems picked up on her point too. WHY? Not too narrow the time frame down--wouldn't really do that. BUT to seem to corroborate her testimony that the attack happened in 1982 when she was 15, by 1 boy & 1 bystander.

10/ AND not in the mid-80s when she was in her late teens by 4 boys as the actual therapist's records say! And how would Ford know that tying Mark Judge to working at the grocery store would set time in summer of 1982?

11/ His book said so! So now everyone is focused on Safeway and when Mark Judge worked there. And when it comes back 3 weeks in July or August of 1982, everyone will be walking 6-8 weeks backwards from there and ignoring conflict in therapist's records. Don't believe me? Look

12/ how Ford's Safeway testimony has been reported: Judge's book validates Ford's timeline! BUT Ford's attorneys refused to turn over therapist's records which record what Ford told therapist and that was attack in mid-80s when in her late teens & 4 boys!

13/ And that timeline makes more sense with what Ford said in her testimony: That the worst part was the first 4 years after the attack. And what did she mention then? Her time at college! NOT her junior and senior years in high school!! Which brings me to the second point

14/ that connects up and that bothered me. Ford had gone to her therapist's office to get copies of her records BEFORE contacting the Washington Post to see if what she said was recorded in there. But Ford said she was only concerned re Kavanaugh in early July & texted Washing.

15/ post on July 6 when she PHYSICALLY had copies of her records after going to office to get. Why? To see what the records said! But what else is in the records, we don't know. What we do know that is in there is much different than her current claim. Records say: late teen

16/ by 4 boys. Ford says: 15 by 1 boy & 1 bystander. Apparently, that's close enough for government work, when you're a Democrat! But no one is really focusing on this disparate but instead asking if Safeway had one or two doors in 1982! (It had 2-I've confirmed w/ sources).

17/ Ford's been Gaslighting America! "Oh, look Safeway, Mark Judge worked there in 1982 and that was 6 - 8 weeks after Kavanaugh attempted to rape me..." And the hounds are chasing the red herring and accepting as fact that attack she spoke of in therapy occurred in 1982 even

18/ though the therapist's notes do NOT support her claim. FBI needs to find out when Ford picked up docs at therapists and then GET. THE. DAMN. THERAPIST'S. RECORDS. END.

Pics, data, sources and backups and original twitter - https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046220074623946752

[jimnyc]

She doesn't know if the polygraph was the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the day after. And this is the most recent of all events. I believe she DOES remember everything about the polygraph, but was unsure on the spot on how to respond, wondering whether or not her answers would come back to haunt her, hence the checking in with her attorney and her uncertainty.

C'mon, you would remember, if just 2 months ago, you went to take a poly test, and drove from there to the cemetery. You would remember if a camera was there setup on a tripod. But these things CAN be corroborated somehow, for whatever reason. And for whatever reason, she didn't know how to answer. That's my opinion and I'm standing by it! :)

I'm sorry, I still see this woman as a far left leaning cuckoo, one who teaches this liberal crap in our educational system. I think she is a known Trump hater. A known liberal. And someone who would go to great lengths to try and prevent another Trump SC justice. Also my opinion.

---

Prosecutor: Christine Blasey Ford Doesn’t Know if Polygraph Was on Day of Grandmother’s Funeral

The final Senate report from Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, questions Blasey Ford’s “struggle to recall important recent events” such as whether she took her polygraph test the same day as her grandmother’s funeral.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Blasey Ford — the California professor who brought forth an allegation of teenage sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee — said she did not know whether her polygraph examination less than two months ago occurred on the same day her grandmother was buried. This discrepancy is listed among nine categories of strikes against Blasey Ford’s testimony which led Mitchell to conclude her account did not meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

When asked why Jerry Hanafin, the polygraph administrator, conducted the examination at a hotel near the Baltimore–Washington International Airport, instead of his Virginia office, Ford revealed time constraints left her unable to travel far for the test.

“I had left my grandmother’s funeral at that point at Fort Lincoln Cemetery that day and I was on a tight scheduled to get to make a plane to Manchester, New Hampshire,” the 51-year-old professor told Mitchell. “He was willing to come to me, which was appreciated.”

“So you were administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother’s funeral?” Mitchell asked.

“Correct, or it might have been the next day,” Ford responded.

She then turned to her attorney, Debra Katz, and said she did not remember the exact day the test was taken.

“Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph,” the memo reads. “And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.”

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/prosecutor-christine-blasey-ford-doesnt-know-if-polygraph-was-on-day-of-grandmothers-funeral/