Outside Counsel, Rachel Mitchell, Issues Conclusion From Kavanaugh-Ford Testimony

Outside Counsel, Rachel Mitchell, Issues Conclusion From Kavanaugh-Ford Testimony October 1, 2018

Have we all gotten over the Kavanaugh intoxication (pun intended) of last week’s Senate hearing into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh?

Of course we’re not. This situation has been extended for a week, as the FBI investigates the claims of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Ford, for those who haven’t been keeping up, claims Judge Brett Kavanaugh, along with a friend, Mark Judge, sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982, when they were both teenagers.

The testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh was emotional, and at times, tense, but both were completely compelling.

Unless you’re a raging, abortion-minded liberal, then you want Brett Kavanaugh and his entire family punished for every rape to have ever happened in modern history.

And yes, while some of those hoping without proof that Kavanaugh is found to be guilty of these claims feel that way because he was nominated by President Trump, they’re yoking themselves with a godless, unjust left, who see Kavanaugh as a threat to Roe v. Wade.

Personally, while I object to Kavanaugh’s nomination, precisely because he is not a threat to Roe v. Wade, I would never let my NeverTrump feelings, or desire for another Scalia on the Supreme Court override my sense of justice and fairness.

You don’t ruin a man’s life and the lives of his family for politics.

And for the leftists reading: I believe women – when they’re telling the truth. They don’t get to say anything they want, no matter how damaging, just because of their anatomy.

I also believe men (when they’re telling the truth).

In order to get to the truth, Republican lawmakers sought to make the process more comfortable for Dr. Ford by bringing in outside counsel, Rachel Mitchell.

Senate Judiciary Republicans hired Mitchell to handle Ford’s questioning during the hearing in order to avoid the optics of an all-male panel grilling her over the allegation. Many Republican strategists after the hearing questioned her role in the day, wondering whether Mitchell’s detail-oriented approach helped or hurt Republicans.

While Mitchell briefly questioned Kavanaugh, most Republican senators ultimately chose to question him themselves.

Mitchell’s reputation of being a thorough investigator of sexual assault cases made her perfect in this role, in spite of the clumsiness of the process.

So this is where the left’s mantra of #BelieveWomen is put to the test.

Mitchell, a woman, has made her conclusion about the testimony given by Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee obtained by The Hill on Sunday night. “But this case is even weaker than that.”

Mitchell, an Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor, wrote she does not believe a “reasonable prosecutor” would bring Ford’s case to trial.

A female sex-crimes prosecutor, who sat through the entire hearing and had the opportunity to question both participants is saying Dr. Ford’s testimony is even weaker than the typical “he said, she said” kind of case.

She gave no analysis of Kavanaugh’s testimony, but honestly, for a prosecutor, their main concern is the strength of the charges, not the defense.

Mitchell in the memo pointed to inconsistencies in Ford’s recounting of the incident, Ford’s inability to remember “key details” from the night and the fact that none of the other attendees at the party in question have corroborated Ford’s account.

These are the same things nonpartisans have been pointing out. These are also the same things partisans are ignoring or twisting to fit into their echo chambers.

Mitchell in the memo pointed out that Ford does not remember how she got home from the party that night, which Mitchell grilled her over during the hearing.

Committee staffers during Ford’s questioning handed out maps showing the seven miles between her home and the country club that Ford says was near the house where Kavanaugh allegedly attacked her. Ford during the hearing said she does not remember how she got home, though she knows she didn’t drive.

“Given that all this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy,” Mitchell wrote.

That’s true. She would have had to call somebody from a land line, caught a ride with somebody at the party, or had a prearranged ride home.

As someone who has lived through a similar situation, during the same time period, the idea that she can’t remember such a crucial detail really does throw everything else into question.

I also understand that the left was never going to accept Mitchell’s report, unless it supported what they wish to be true. It does not, so we can count on them blowing this off, as well as attacking Mitchell – a woman – in ways they say shouldn’t happen.

So now we wait for the FBI report that will, I predict, back up Mitchell’s assessment.

And as someone else pointed out, if any Democrats vote against him after getting what they want, as far as an investigation, we can safely assume they really didn’t care about Dr. Ford. They only wanted that #MeToo weapon to be wielded effectively, truth be damned.


We want to know what you think about the upcoming midterm elections. Vote in our poll below!

"And the bunny ears! And having to adjust them just so! Putting aluminum foil on ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"I do have some sympathy for old people who can't or won't adapt to change. ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"I'm not even 40 and I realize I was taught completely useless skills in school. ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"Well, you can actually, and a lot people do."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • WW

    I’m not sure if anything
    will come of the FBI investigation other than partisan bickering as there is already a dispute over the the limits of the investigation. I was already against a Kavenaugh confirmation due to his changing view of executive privilege in an investigation.
    After watching the hearing Thursday I have no idea as to whether these accusations by Ford happened but I did find her testimony credible. I can understand him being upset if these accusations aren’t true but I also find his demeanor in this hearing to be unbecoming of a supreme court justice. That being said, here is what I have a serious problem with. Full disclosure, I also was one who drank and partied in high school and carried it to another level in college. For Kavenaugh to try and say that the devil’s triangle is a drinking game and that boofing has to do with flatulence along with the other pathetic explanations of his yearbook references. I find it deeply concerning that Kavanaugh would think that these were credible explanations.
    I do believe that Kavanaugh will be the next supreme court justice but I also believe that the GOP will pay a price in the next two elections.

  • chemical

    And for the leftists reading…

    Hi there!

    Unless you’re a raging, abortion-minded liberal, then you want Brett Kavanaugh and his entire family punished for every rape to have ever happened in modern history.

    No. Just the ones he committed.

    You don’t ruin a man’s life and the lives of his family for politics.

    I’ve said this before: Christine Ford and other accusers didn’t ruin Brett Kavanaugh’s life. Brett Kavanaugh is self-inflicting his own grievances. It’s also nonsense that his life is being ruined over politics. First of all, his life isn’t being ruined. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial. In the event the FBI finds the allegations credible, he doesn’t get the job. It’s that simple. Second, this isn’t over politics. Evidence: Neil Gorsuch. Even though his seat was essentially stolen from Merrick Garland, his confirmation was rather tame, and he received bipartisan support. Hell, I would have voted for him if I were in the Senate. Neil Gorsuch may be the only person Trump nominated for anything that is actually qualified to do the job he was nominated for.

    There is also the fact that Kavanaugh lied to Congress, under oath during his confirmation hearing. Devil’s Tower and boofing, for example. Lying over little things like that shows that he doesn’t care about the truth. Kavanaugh tried (and failed) to paint himself as some sort of choir boy. If Kavanaugh went on the stand tomorrow and vowed to uphold Roe v Wade and every other liberal cause, I’d still oppose him, for being an unqualified, mediocre, drunk frat boy who would have never amounted to anything had he not been born to a wealthy family.

    If the GOP had any honor left, they would withdraw support for Kavanaugh and nominate another Neil Gorsuch. But they don’t want to do that because they’re making a political calculation: They think getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is worth more than losing the the House (and possibly the Senate).

  • Polarbearpapa

    Thanks Susan…good read…

  • guy

    “I also understand that the left was never going to accept Mitchell’s report, unless it supported what they wish to be true. It does not, ”

    To be fair, you’d have to presume the same to be true of the right. Given the nature of the beast, an analysis that diminishes the party narrative is all too often disqualified.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I agree with much of what you say and feel that we don’t need another entitled trust-fund baby on the USSC. Especially one that Trump is (falsely) praising to the rooftops. With corrupt bullies like Trump, the more they praise an individual, the more they are (usually) trying to cover up about their past, thinking that if they praise the individual enough, no one will take a serious look at his/her past or even their current (non-public) activities.

    In addition to not wanting what appears to be a Trumpian-style bully (if you upset Kavanaugh, it appears he gets angry and mean) on a lifetiime appointment to the USSC, I think the Republican circus (even the FBI “investigation” is nothing more than a smokescreen for political purposes. Giving the FBI only 1 week to investigate while moving ahead with the voting implies that either the outcome of the investigation has already been determined from “on high” or the outcome of the investigation will be ignored by the Senators in the GOP. Either way is enough for me to be wary and against the process being used to bulldoze Kavanaugh through the Senate and onto the USSC. It’s this partisan process that makes me be against Kavanaugh being confirmed rather than any argument from either side.

    As to the arguments coming from both sides, I find neither one credible in the hyper-partisan DC where EVERYTHING is politicized. I think the GOP are doing their best to cover up for Kavanaugh’s history and the Democrats are doing their best to run an unsubstantiated smear campaign.

    A pox on both their houses.

    Kavanaugh should withdraw his name (or Trump should select someone else – Kavanaugh now has too much baggage for any of his judgements on the USSC to ever be considered “non-partisan” or “non-political”. The USSC got a black eye when Sotomyor was nominated by Democrat acclamation and again when Roberts twisted the definition of “tax” vs “penalty” to declare Obamacare constitutional. With Kavanaugh on the bench, they may well lose the trust of half or more of the US population – just from the perception that the GOP rammed his nomination through in an attempt to appease Trump.

  • chemical

    Mostly agree, but this:

    Giving the FBI only 1 week to investigate while moving ahead with the voting implies that either the outcome of the investigation has already been determined from “on high” or the outcome of the investigation will be ignored by the Senators in the GOP.

    I disagree with. The 1-week timeline reminds me of Clarence Thomas’s nomination, in response to sexual harassment allegations. The FBI completed it in 3 days. (Admittedly, I don’t know much about Thomas;s nomination, as I was age 10 when he was confirmed) Kavanaugh’s allegations are MUCH more serious than what Thomas was facing down during his nomination, but at the same time this shouldn’t be held up forever.

    SCOTUS is the only branch of government I have any faith in. Congress is pretty much ineffective, and don’t even get me started on the White House. I don’t want to see it stacked with hard-partying Trump sycophants.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    It’s not the length of time, it’s the 1-week cut-off that I object to. If the FBI completes their investigation in 3 days, I’m OK with that. If they find a trail that may take them beyond their 1-week limit and are forbidden to follow-up because of the 1-week limit, then I object.

    Once Trump/Congress sets a limit on the time granted for the investigation, all Kavanaugh supporters need to do is to distract the FBI with misleading statements for 1 week, knowing that at the end of that time, Kavanaugh will be given the green light – regardless of what may have been found in a week-and-a-half or 2 weeks.

    All it would take would be for key witnesses to “win” 2-3 week “vacations” out-of-country to defeat the FBI’s attempt at an investigation where all applicable potential witnesses are interviewed.

    I guess I’m supposed to rest assured that Trump does not employ any “fixers” that would provide such “vacations” with an expectation that they would be paid back from – say – the Trump Foundation charity….. Perhaps we should trust those like Manafort and Roger Stone to not engage in witness tampering or death threats against anyone that might provide proof against Kavanaugh during the 1 week of the investigation.

    I also have no faith in Congress, but I have even less faith that Trump will even give a cursory nod to the law to avoid looking bad for picking a loser for the USSC. Just look at who Trump surrounds himself with and how many of them appear to be pleading guilty in Mueller’s investigation.

    Again – knowing the investigation will be at most 1 week in length gives TOO MANY possibilities to sweep incriminating evidence under the rug.

  • mersey

    I’m sure that no one is surprised that Rachel Mitchell, who was hired by the Republicans, would come to any other conclusion than what she stated above. It’s another political statement in a long list of political statements about this nomination. As a male, I never went through sexual abuse that many women have had to deal with in their lives. But when I think back of memorable events that happened in my life from many years ago, I can remember the core of the event but have little to no memory of what happened right before and right after the event. So I can understand that Dr. Ford may not remember how she exactly got to a party and how she got back home and other things being asked that aren’t remembered. That’s not saying she’s being completely honest, but it doesn’t mean she lying.

    Like most people, I have no idea who’s telling the truth and who’s lying, but I won’t use my own political persuasion to make that judgement. I did find it repulsive when Judge Kavanaugh went full crazy Trump during the hearing. If you’re an honest conservative, you don’t want a Supreme Court Justice with a raging temperament and openly political opinions on display during a confirmation hearing. Like others who have posted, I think the Republicans can find a better candidate for the highest court in the land.

  • JASmius

    Well, this proves that Mitchell is a competent sex crimes prosecutor. “No evidence? Weak, inconsistent, spotty single-witness testimony uncorroborated and/or contradicted by every other tangential witness? Gee, I wouldn’t bring this to trial.” What will the “progressive” verdict be? Why, that Rachel Mitchell is obviously a cross-dressing man, of course! But have no fear, my friends, for the Jerry Springer Congress will lurch and blither on.

  • joesockit

    Personally I don’t have huge support for him, or at least didn’t, After all the Democrats are doing to him I’m good with him on the court just to spite them.There are limits to what you should do and the Democrats crossed WAY over the line here. The woman has zero evidence, and here are the Democrats saying she has a case when even with the boatload of evidence against Hillary ” No reasonable prosecutor would take the case”. Democrats just suck.

  • loveandcommonsense

    “If any Democrats vote against him after getting what they want, as far as an investigation, we can safely assume they really didn’t care about Dr. Ford. They only wanted that #MeToo weapon to be wielded effectively, truth be damned.”

    Nonsense. Kavanaugh has lied to congress several times, is hyperpartisan and belligerent. A vocal critic of investigations into sitting Presidents, he did not appear on Trump’s shortlist until after Mueller’s appt. Even some conservatives (Bill Kristol comes to mind) have said they wouldn’t vote for him. If lying to Congress is not a disqualifier for SCOTUS, what is?

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Any prosecutor that goes to court with only the testimony of the Defendent is a fool. When charges are brought forth, an investigation is almost ALWAYS called for (unless the accused confesses on the spot). ONLY with the output of a full, fair investigation can any prosecution decision be made or any trial conducted.

    Trump ordering a 1-week-limited “investigation” is a sham. Notes the Republicans are not slowing down the confirmation votes or process pending the outcome of the investigation. They are proceeding as if the investigation has already been completed and Kavanaugh has been found innocent of all charges. Do they already know the outcome of the investigation that is yet to be conducted ? It sure sounds like they do.

    If anything, it proves Mitchell is incompetent as a prosecutor. Grill the defendent on public trial on TV and then claim her recalled version of events is “weak” or “wrong” ? How does Mitchell know ? How traumatic were the events ? Could they have been blocked from memory. As a man, I can only imagine that rape is an event most women would try to forget – not remember every detail of.

    For Mitchell to declare that one woman’s testimony is irrelevant because “reasonable prosecutors” would not “go to court” with it absent any impartial investigation by competent investigators is the height of hubris. Prosecutors should NEVER “go to court” with a he-said/she-said case without additional (impartial, objective) proof of a crime having been committed. At most Mitchell SHOULD have said “I see nothing in this testimony that warrants further investigation” meaning no investigation is necessary. Since should not (politically) say that, she made the GOP’s conclusion for them that there is no case and no basis for an investigation to develop a case.

    It is certainly not the role of a prosecutor to determine the facts of the case or even whether all the available facts have been presented by one person’s testimony.