Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in new report

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Maroboduus

Ever wonder why the Democrat side didn't choose a special "questioner" ?

😃

Pretty tough to grandstand and get sound bytes for your election campaign if someone else is asking the questions.

Plus the Democrats wanted to prove that men are stronger than women by highlighting the fact that Kav didn't need any special concessions lol.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

So may I ask why will we not believe mitchell?

Because her review of Ford, including all public information released by Ford and her Lawyers, undermines her (Fords) claims. Democrats are not big on having their own actions used against them considering they give the impression that laws just dont apply to them.

For evidence see what happened in Kieth Ellisons case.

Democrats are ok using 36 year old allegations with no corroboration, witnesses or evidence however when it comes to Ellison, where the victim came forward, provided police reports and medical reports, they claim they cant substantiate the claims.

Dems demanded a hearing for Ford. When Republicans said ok they were accused by Democrats of bullying her. Republicans said they would travel to California, hold open or closed door sessions, allow Senators air aides to interview her etc. Her lawyers apparently did not disclose that to their clinet. They demand an FBI investigation, get one, and then, within 24 hours, claim its a farce.

Now Democrats are wanting a delay, again.

originally posted by: Maroboduus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra


I wish there was a way you could say in the title that this is the Prosecutor who questioned FORD and KAVANAUGH. I had no idea who this was before opening your thread.

This is great news! Dims will accept it, I'm sure!

I doubt Dems will accept it. They demanded hearings and when they got them they demanded more time and accused Republicans of being bully's. When they got more time they demanded a full FBI investigation and got one. When they got the FBI investigation, within 24 hours, they started claiming it was a farce.

The Democrats dont seem to know when to quit when one of their schemes goes south. They keep doubling down with no clear path.

ETA - Thread title changed to add clarity as to what this thread is dealing with.

That's because it IS a farce. There are numerous former classmates of Kavanaugh who have said they would like to speak to the FBI regarding Kavanaugh, and the FBI has refused to speak to them. Rather, the White House has not allowed it. Weird that they wouldn't want the FBI speaking to people who may be able to support the accusations against Kavanaugh!

Every person names by Ford and Ramirez were located. They either had no idea what the 2 were talking about, others were dead and the rest said it never occurred. Without evidence its is extremely difficult to impeach a persons testimony / interviews under oath. As for Ford being interviewed there is no need considering her testimony and her lawyers appearances on tv.

The only farce were the claims and the bs reopening of his background investigation.

a reply to: Carcharadon

But smart on the GOP's part to use a 3rd Party questioner, so the opponent can't use you in their ads to somehow imply you were attacking an alleged abused person.

a reply to: Maroboduus

So you are saying a prosecutor should not be zealous in pursuing the case she was assigned?

Democrats had the choice to use their own and opted not to. The reason Mitchell was chosen was 2 fold. First she is a woman so the questioning would be more balanced and deny the Democrats the chance to argue a bunch of men were bullying her in their questioning.

Secondly Mitchell is a career prosecutor who specialized in sex crimes.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made against Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It only matters what can be proven. Finally, as for the Yale charges Kavanaughs previous background investigations included people from college and not one raised this issue.

The statute of limitations (assuming she is telling the truth and all evidence to date says she is not) has passed.

So, what exactly is being investigated? Fords claims.

There is a reason Feinstein didnt want the FBI supplemental released to the public. She claims its to protect witnesses but in reality its to contain the fact there bluff was called and dont want an official FBI report being released to the public showing Ford and Democrats supporting her are liars.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is a reason Feinstein didnt want the FBI supplemental released to the public. She claims its to protect witnesses but in reality its to contain the fact there bluff was called and dont want an official FBI report being released to the public...

I don't disagree with you, but I really think DiFi's getting screwed here too. Someone decided she's expendable. Whoever's really calling the shots here.

And no pity here for DiFi. She's been dirty as can be forever. She made her bed.

... showing Ford and Democrats supporting her are liars.

It seems to me this is worse than just liars/perjurors. Wouldn't this rise to the level of full-fledged fraud perpetrated upon the Senate? And ultimately the people?

I don't disagree with you, but I really think DiFi's getting screwed here too. Someone decided she's expendable. Whoever's really calling the shots here.

No wonder Trump was so calm this week.... LOL.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Carcharadon

But smart on the GOP's part to use a 3rd Party questioner, so the opponent can't use you in their ads to somehow imply you were attacking an alleged abused person.

Absolutely. I thought it was stupid for the Dems to make an issue of her being questioned by old white men. By doing that they guaranteed the R's would bring in a 3rd party. Stupid move as it took a massive bullet out of their pity party gun.

I would like to make a few points, but before I do I want to clarify my position. I have no clue if Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent. In my opinion, Mrs. Ford made a credible accusation under oath against Judge Kavanaugh. However, Judge Kavanaugh made an equally credible denial under oath. So, until I hear more evidence I will reserve my opinion.

As for this article, the first thing that bothers me is the use of the word 'exonerate'. To exonerate means to absolve a person from fault or wrongdoing. This is not something that Rachel Mitchell has the power to do. You may consider this nitpicky but words have meanings and this makes the findings of Mrs. Mitchell appear to be more important than they are.

Also, remember that Rachel Mitchell was hired by the Republicans for the task of interviewing Mrs. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and writing this report. Therefore, a reasonable person could assume that the Republicans would ask her to write her report in favor of Judge Kavanaugh.

I am not saying the Republicans actually did this, but it is a possibility to consider. If the Democrats are capable of orchestrating a massive conspiracy to paint Judge Kavanaugh as a drunken rapist then surely the Republicans are capable of nudging their retainer to write a positive report.

a reply to: BlackJackal

But nobody can dispute the conflicts in Ford's testimony.

That's what counts.

And there's a bunch more that has been disclosed over the last few hours.

😎

a reply to: xuenchen

What conflicts are you referring to? The report released by Mrs. Mitchell did not detail any conflicts that I could see. She pointed out a lack of details mostly lack of a date, lack of details from the night of the assault, etc.

Surely you jest. When did a prosecutor make a finding before any investigation occurred, however cursory? Obviously, Mitchell is playing her role as hired by Republicans.

originally posted by: tabularosa
Surely you jest. When did a prosecutor make a finding before any investigation occurred, however cursory? Obviously, Mitchell is playing her role as hired by Republicans.

What are you talking about? Stop being a partisan hack. The testimony already occurred.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: xuenchen

What conflicts are you referring to? The report released by Mrs. Mitchell did not detail any conflicts that I could see. She pointed out a lack of details mostly lack of a date, lack of details from the night of the assault, etc.

The conflicts would be 4 boys assaulted her, then 4 people at the party and 2 assaulted her, to 4 boys and a couple of girls were there, then 4 boys and 1 girl were there.

Are you saying the statement she made for the polygraph test which was submitted as evidence matches the statement she gave the senate?

Sarah Sanders at WH Press Conference right now.

"Every bit of evidence gathered thus far, supports Brett Kavanaugh."

Sounds like the White House is being kept abreast of the FBI's findings.

The so-called journalists look worn-out, and angry. Love it!

I have a feeling this will be wrapped up tomorrow (investigation wise).

How many of you know that Rachel Mitchell briefed Senators in closed-session, before issuing her Kavanaugh exoneration memo? I didn't. Her briefing/memo/recommendation is being taken very seriously by key Republican Senators, according to:

The decision by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley to have Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell question Christine Blasey Ford may well be remembered as a brilliant -- and quite possibly pivotal -- choice.

No doubt, allowing Mitchell to ask questions instead of Republican senators served a defensive purpose, avoiding the spectacle of a bunch of old, white men publicly questioning a woman who says she was a victim of sexual abuse.

But Mitchell's methodical, genial approach left many supporters of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh deeply frustrated, with some complaining that Mitchell was "not laying a glove" on Ford.

That view is wrong.

First, the audience for Mitchell's questions was not the media or even the general public. It was the three Republican senators who will determine Judge Kavanaugh's fate: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

And it turns out that Mitchell's orderly questioning actually elicited a lot of information that undermined Ford's case against Kavanaugh. This was not obvious during the hearing, because Mitchell was not able to deliver a summation.

But she was able to do so later, first during a closed-door meeting of Republican senators and then in a memorandum, in which she explains why, based on her quarter-century of experience prosecuting sex crimes, no "reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee."

Source: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah the Democrats lost the moment their bluff was called. Democrats behavior on this issue has massively blown up in their face in that they have energized the right to vote. Democrats managed to wipe out a 10 point lead over Republicans for enthusiasm to vote.

Republican challengers in 5 senate races show they have taken the lead over the democratic incumbents.

The final letter sent to Grassley by all Democrats of the judiciary committee went without notice when they claimed the FBI background investigations contain evidence of wrong doing. People missed the fact that 2 Democrats refused to sign the letter (Coons and Klobuchar) and I dont believe it was a simple oversight on their part. Something tells me those 2 Democrats have gone along with this charade long enough and that this baseless accusation was the final straw.

Republican challengers in 5 senate races show they have taken the lead over the democratic incumbents.

And for every ONE that actually talked to pollsters, there are FIVE more who are just keeping it to themselves until election day. (when they vote RED all down the ballot, due to this nonsense).

The Dems have again awakened the silent majority, and again, it's going to completely bite them in the ass.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

So may I ask why will we not believe mitchell?

Because her review of Ford, including all public information released by Ford and her Lawyers, undermines her (Fords) claims. Democrats are not big on having their own actions used against them considering they give the impression that laws just dont apply to them.

For evidence see what happened in Kieth Ellisons case.

Democrats are ok using 36 year old allegations with no corroboration, witnesses or evidence however when it comes to Ellison, where the victim came forward, provided police reports and medical reports, they claim they cant substantiate the claims.

Dems demanded a hearing for Ford. When Republicans said ok they were accused by Democrats of bullying her. Republicans said they would travel to California, hold open or closed door sessions, allow Senators air aides to interview her etc. Her lawyers apparently did not disclose that to their clinet. They demand an FBI investigation, get one, and then, within 24 hours, claim its a farce.

Now Democrats are wanting a delay, again.

Seems the fbi investigation agrees with Mitchell.
Perhaps this will end up being the last smear campaign of this style?
IMO this will cost the dems seats in the midterms.