The Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee has released her final report, and it is not good for Democrats.
As noted by The Daily Wire, Rachel Mitchell not only wrote in a brutal 5-page memo that she would not any bring charges against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, she also tore apart Ford’s flimsy allegations. Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her almost 40 years ago. Kavanaugh strongly denies the allegations.
Mitchell’s memo details nine major issues with Ford’s testimony and claims, and writes that her allegations are so problematic and shaky that it would be next-to-impossible to ever bring her case before a judge in court.
Here’s what Mitchell writes:
“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.”
Below are the nine problems Mitchell detailed in her memo:
1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
Mitchell writes that Ford’s timeline is very shaky, noting that she told the media, Sen. Diane Feinstein, and the Committee three different dates for when the alleged assault took place.
2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
The Arizona prosecutor details how Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh by name in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, her 2013 individual therapy notes, and how there’s no proof that she named Kavanaugh when she told her husband around 2012 about the alleged assault.
3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:
- Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
- But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
- She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
Mitchell writes that Ford has no memory of who invited her to the party, how she heard about it, how she got to the alleged party, what house the assault allegedly took place at, where that house is located, or how she got from the party back to her home.
5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.
The Arizona prosecutor notes that the three witnesses who Ford claims attended the party have told investigators that they never witnessed what Ford has alleged.
6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
Mitchell explains that Ford has changed her story numerous times about what happened, telling the media, Feinstein, and the Committee a different story each time. She also writes that Fords account of who was at the alleged party has been inconsistent.
7. 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.
Ford cannot remember what she told The Washington Post about the attack and what information she actually gave to the outlet.
- Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
- Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
Ford testified that she was given a polygraph examine in August in the conference room of a motel around the same time of her grandmother’s funeral. Mitchell writes that Ford doesn’t know who paid for the examine and that she should not have been given the examine while grieving. Ford was also only asked two pathetic questions.
9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
Mitchell concludes by writing that Democrats and the media likely influenced Ford to change her story to better fit the narrative because there is hardly any evidence to support her allegations.
Mitchell’s report is brutal, factually sound, and tears apart all of Ford’s flimsy claims.