Today
is a relatively low-news day so I have had the opportunity to look at
some of the holes in the story presented on Kavanagh.
As
I have pointed out there are a thousand reasons to oppose the
nomination of this judge to SCOTUS but none of these are beign cited
by the Establishment.
How
could they without indicting themselves?
This
is a desparate ploy by one section of one section of the Permanent
State.
What
are they afraid of?
Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists ‘Weaknesses’ in Ford Claim
Heavy.com,
1 October, 2018
Rachel Mitchell, the veteran sex crimes prosecutor from Maricopa County, Arizona who was chosen by the GOP to question Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, sent a memo to Republican senators calling Ford’s allegations a “he said, she said” case that “is even weaker than that.”
You can read the five-page memo and a four-page timeline at the end of it in full here:
Mitchell Memo by on Scribd
Mitchell
wrote in the memo that she was presenting her “independent
assessment” of the allegations. She said this was based on her
independent review of the evidence and her nearly 25 years of
experience. She alleged in the document that “the activities of
Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford’s account.”
She
said she was not pressured to write the memorandum and it did not
necessarily reflect the views of any other senator or committee
member. “While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political
or partisan person,” she wrote.
Mitchell
added, “There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made
during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I
work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only
provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal
context.”
Mitchell
wrote that 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….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.”
Mitchell
then listed her reasons for that conclusion. They included:
That
Dr. Ford “has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged
assault happened.”
Under
this header, Mitchell listed different accounts she says Ford gave,
ranging from “mid 1980s” in a text to the Washington Post to
“early 80s” in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among other
things.
That
Dr. Ford “has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the
assailant by name.”
According
to Rachel Mitchell, no name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual
and marriage therapy notes. She did note that Ford’s husband
“claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
2012” and added “in any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years
to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this
is not dispositive.”
That
“when speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description
of the incident to become less specific.”
Mitchell
stated that Ford told The Washington Post that she told her husband
she was the victim of “physical abuse,” whereas she has now
testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault.”
That
“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question –
details that could help corroborate her account.”
Among
them, according to Mitchell: “She does not remember who invited her
to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she
got to the party.” Mitchell continued: “She does not remember in
what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was
located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not
remember how she got from the party to her house.” The memo then
continued listing more details.
Mitchell
pointed out that Ford “does, however, remember small, distinct
details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she
testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking
no medication at the time of the alleged assault.”
That
“Dr. Ford’s Account of the Alleged Assault Has Not Been
Corroborated by Anyone She Identified as Having Attended –
Including Her Lifelong Friend.”
Mitchell
wrote that Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh
who attended the party – Mark Judge, Patrick PJ Smyth, and her
lifelong friend Leland Keyser, formerly Ingham. She said another boy
attended but she couldn’t remember his name, but Mitchell pointed
out that “no others have come forward.”
“All
three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee
denying any memory of the party whatsoever,” Mitchell wrote. She
stated that Keyser stated through counsel in her first statement that
“Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of
ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with, or
without, Dr. Ford.”
In
a later statement, Keyser’s lawyer said, “the simple and
unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s
allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.”
Ford
testified that Leland did “not follow up with Dr. Ford after the
party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.”
That
“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged
attack.”
For
example, Mitchell wrote that Ford wrote in her letter to Sen. Dianne
Feinstein that she had heard Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to
other partygoers downstairs while hiding in the bathroom after the
alleged assault but testified that she could not hear them talking to
anyone.
That
her “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”
Mitchell
said The Washington Post’s account of Dr. Ford’s therapist notes
say there were four boys in the bedroom when she was allegedly
assaulted. Ford told The Post the notes were erroneous because there
were four boys at the party but only two in the bedroom.
In
her letter to Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were at the
party but in her testimony she said there were four boys in
additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She listed Smyth as a
bystander in a text to The Post and to a polygrapher and then
testified it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. “She did not
list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s
presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s,” wrote
Mitchell.
That
“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.”
Mitchell
said that Ford doesn’t remember if she showed a full or partial set
of therapy notes to the Washington Post. She doesn’t remember if
she showed the Post the notes or her summary of the notes.
Mitchell
stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
That
“Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the
way she did raises questions.”
For
example, Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but
called a tipline at the Washington Post. She testified that she had a
“sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the
president.” But she also said she did not contact the Senate
because she claimed she “did not know how to do that.”
Mitchell
also noted that Ford “could not remember if she was being audio or
video-recorded when she took the polygraph. She could not remember
whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s
funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. It would also
have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was
grieving.” (Ford’s attorneys have said she took and passed a
polygraph.)
That
“Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event
raises questions.”
According
to Mitchell, the date of the hearing was delayed because the
Committee was told that Ford’s symptoms prevented her from flying,
but she agreed during testimony that she flies “fairly frequently.”
She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing. Mitchell noted that
Ford testified that she was not “clear” whether investigators
were willing to travel to California to interview her.
She
said she struggled academically in college, but she didn’t make the
claim about the last two years of high school.
That
“the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s
attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Debra
Katz is a high profile attorney known for her involvement in the
#MeToo movement who represents Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who
filed a claim against Brett Kavanaugh.
Under
the above header, Mitchell referred to an additional timeline. You
can read it at the end of the document embedded near the top of this
article.
The
above is a partial summary. In multiple instances, Mitchell provided
additional examples to back up her claims. You can read them all in
the memo at the top of this article.
Mitchell
is an award-winning sex crimes prosecutor in Arizona, although her
position in Maricopa County has caused some controversy online due to
a rape kit backlog and the proximity to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office once helmed by Donald Trump-backing Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
However, the Sheriff’s Office is a different agency from the
prosecutor’s office that has employed Rachel Mitchell for more than
two decades.
In
his statement appointing Mitchell, Chuck Grassley praised Rachel
Mitchell’s career. Grassley said that Mitchell has “decades of
experience prosecuting sex crimes,” calling her a “career
prosecutor.”
Although
critics have alleged the GOP Senators just didn’t want the bad
optics of an all-male panel questioning Ford, Grassley gave another
motive. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the
truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to
launch their presidential campaigns,” Grassley said.
“I’m
very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve
in this important and serious role. Ms. Mitchell has been recognized
in the legal community for her experience and objectivity. I’ve
worked to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to share serious allegations
with committee members in any format she’d like after learning of
the allegations. I promised Dr. Ford that I would do everything in my
power to avoid a repeat of the ‘circus’ atmosphere in the hearing
room that we saw the week of September 4. I’ve taken this
additional step to have questions asked by expert staff counsel to
establish the most fair and respectful treatment of the witnesses
possible.”
However,
Ford’s attorneys repeatedly objected to the Senate Judiciary
Committee using an outside lawyer to question Ford. Michael Bromwich,
an attorney for Ford, said previously in a statement, “This is not
a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex
crimes prosecutor would be appropriate. Neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor
Judge Kavanaugh is on trial. The goal should be to develop the
relevant facts, not try a case.”
Rachel
Mitchell is a prosecutor from Arizona, but she’s now on leave.
“Mitchell worked in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in
Phoenix as the chief of the Special Victims Division, which covers
sex crimes and family violence,” reported
12News.
CNN
reported that
Mitchell is currently on leave from her position as “the deputy
county attorney and as the chief of the Special Victims Division”
in Maricopa County.
Rachel
Mitchell has donated to the campaign of Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s
Republican attorney general, according to The Post. The County
Attorney’s newsletter also mentions that Mitchell was part of a
team that won an award for dealing with a “sex assault backlog.”
According
to AZFamily.com,
Rachel Mitchell was also among prosecutors assigned to figure out why
some Maricopa County Sheriff’s cases were not resolved or fully
investigated. The Washington Post reported that Mitchell was assigned
to help “figure out which cases were still viable…She later
conducted training sessions for the sheriff’s office, in hopes of
avoiding a repeat.” The crimes dated from 2005-2007, the newspaper
reported.
Mitchell
assumed her job as head of the unit overseeing sex crimes in January
2005 as part of an office shakeup that some criticized, according to
an article in the Phoenix New Times. The article said the naming of
another woman as a special assistant in the County Attorney’s
office that was part of the same shakeup was “a clear signal that
the County Attorney’s Office no longer will do battle with
controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio over what Romley staffers often
viewed as legally impermissible excesses.” The office was being run
by a new County attorney.
The
site End
the Backlog says a
state audit in 2016 found that there were still more than 6,000
untested rape kits in Arizona. More than 4,300 were from Maricopa
County. An open records request from an advocacy organization in
Tucson helped spur some of the attention to the issue, the site says.
Critics have pointed out that Mitchell was a sex crimes prosecutor
for years at that point, and rape kit testing was up to the
prosecutor’s discretion. AZCentral
reported that
advocates blamed a lack of funding, in part, and said the decisions
for testing were often made at the police level.
You
can read that 2016 state audit here. It
reads, in part, “in reviewing the inventory, it is important to
understand the history of why sex crimes evidence kits went untested
or were not submitted to the crime laboratory for testing in the
first place. Primary causes include limited resources for both police
agencies and crime laboratories, investigative discretion and
prosecutorial decision making.”
Mitchell
has also prosecuted cases involving delayed reporting and has handled
multiple cases involving priests accused of sexual abuse.
Rachel
Mitchell’s boss praised her after news of her selection to question
Dr. Ford. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery told
AZFamily
that Mitchell was a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor”
who has a “caring heart” for victims.
The
Arizona newspaper also reported that Rachel Mitchell was named
“Arizona’s outstanding sexual-assault prosecutor” in 2003 and
her office’s Prosecutor of the Year in 2006.
Mitchell
told FrontLine that she had trained churches and schools on Arizona’s
mandatory reporting laws. Mitchell went to law school at Arizona
State, is licensed to practice law in Arizona, and was admitted to
practice law in the state in 1992, according
to a bio. The
AZ Bar lists no disciplinary actions for her.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.