Last week, the nation watched as Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing was regarding Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court and Dr. Ford's accusations of sexual assault when the two were in high school 36 years ago.
Following the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately decided to push Judge Kavanaugh through to a Senate vote. However, President Trump has called for a shortened FBI investigation before that vote takes place.
Now, a prominent individual who was asked to be present at the committee's hearing has spoken out with her opinion. Rachel Mitchell is a prosecutor who has worked extensively with victims of assault.
The all-male GOP side of the committee asked Mitchell to be present at the hearing in order to be able to ask appropriate questions to Dr. Ford based on her experience with victims of assault. On Sunday afternoon, Mitchell released a 5-page memo regarding her take from the hearing.
According to the Daily Wire, Mitchell outlined 9 reasons that Dr. Ford's testimony would not hold up in a court.
Mitchell said, "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 points that Mitchell highlighted:
1. The date of the alleged attack is inconsistent.
Mitchell outlined several times where Dr. Ford talked about the date of the incident. In different accounts, she had reported: "mid 1980s," "early 1980s," "summer in early 80s," with the word "early" later crossed out, etc. She also at one point said that she was 15 when the attack occurred, which would not have been consistent with the year 1982.
2. Dr. Ford had not previously named Judge Kavanaugh.
Mitchell noted that even in previous therapy sessions, Dr. Ford had not named Judge Kavanaugh. The first time that she was reported to use his name was after his name was already in the press as being a potential Supreme Court judge.
3. Dr. Ford used different language when describing what she told her husband.
Before the committee, Ford said she told her husband about a "sexual assault" before they were married. However, in the Washington Post, she said that she had told her husband only about "physical abuse."
4. Dr. Ford did not have memories of key details, including how she ended up at the party, how she got back to her house, where the party was at, etc.
Mitchell noted that although she couldn't remember some important details, Dr. Ford talked about some random, specific memories including only consuming exactly one beer.
5. The attack has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses that Dr. Ford mentioned.
6. Dr. Ford made subtle differences between her original letter to the Washington Post and her testimony before the committee.
7. Dr. Ford has forgotten or has a foggy memory of various important events related to the allegations, including why she reported in the way that she did, what she told the Washington Post, and about the polygraph.
8. Dr. Ford's claims of psychological impact are not clear.
Mitchell noted that Dr. Ford has mentioned several impacts from the event, some of which are not consistent with how she lives. For instance, Dr. Ford said that her symptoms prevent her from flying, but she actually reportedly flies multiple times a year. Additionally, she used the word "contributed" rather than "caused" when talking about the impact.
9. Mitchell noted that Dr. Ford's account may have been affected by her attorneys and congressional Democrats.
What do you think about Mitchell's account? Let us know your thoughts. In other recent news, a beloved singer who was "Entertainer of the Century" just passed away at 94.