Auto news on Youtube Oct 1 2018

In a five-page memo composed on September 30, prosecutor Rachel Mitchell

has explained why she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell, who was hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to question

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing, said she does not believe a

"reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the

Committee." Her conclusion, she writes, is based on her independent assessment

and review of Ford's allegations. Writes Mitchell,

The Phoenix-based prosecutor, was hired by Republicans to question Dr. Ford about

her claims against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford alleged that

an inebriated Kavanaugh pinned her on a bed, muffled her cries and tried removing

her clothes when both were teenagers in the 1980s. In the memo, Mitchell cites

Dr Ford's "inconsistencies" in relaying the exact time period the alleged attack took

place, noting that her accounts varied from the "mid 80's" to

the "early 80's" to the "summer of 1982." Dr Ford said she thought he was

"accidentally going to kill me" and was "100 percent certain" that her attacker was

Kavanaugh during her testimony, but Mitchell wrote in her memo that Dr Ford had

previously struggled to identify Kavanaugh by name when describing the alleged

incident during couples and individual therapy sessions. Kavanaugh vehemently

denied even being at the party, citing his calendar from 1982 as apparent proof

and calling the whole situation an "orchestrated political hit" by the Democrats.

The Supreme Court hopeful's testimony came after Dr. Ford's in the riveting and

emotional nearly nine-hour event, which saw more than 20 million viewers tune in.

The hearing was not a criminal proceeding and was part of the confirmation process for

Kavanaugh, which is now delayed pending an FBI investigation into the allegations.

To read more on this story, head to THR.com.

For The Hollywood Reporter News, I'm Lyndsey Rodrigues.

For more infomation >> Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Says She Wouldn't Bring Criminal Charges Against Kavanaugh | THR News - Duration: 1:55.

-------------------------------------------

WOW: Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Ford Tears Apart Her Case With Brutal 5-Page Memo - Duration: 5:33.

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.

For more infomation >> WOW: Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Ford Tears Apart Her Case With Brutal 5-Page Memo - Duration: 5:33.

-------------------------------------------

Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29.

For more infomation >> Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29.

-------------------------------------------

Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report - Duration: 3:28.

Ford attorneys to be investigated for betraying client to help Dems report

few things are sweeter than watching a democratic plot blow up spectacularly in

their faces unless you have been living under a rock you have undoubtedly heard

about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett

Kavanaugh the accuser Christine Blasi Ford has been thrust into the public

spotlight as a result look the entire thing as murky there is a startling lack

of evidence especially considering the assault allegedly took place over 30

years ago so it's unfair to paint Cavanaugh in a negative light

not that that stopped far-left Democrats from trying to do so but by that same

token Ford and all sexual assault victims should still be given an

opportunity to be heard sexual assault is never okay and any allegation is

worth looking at so let's pump the brakes on presuming

innocence or guilt and refrain from attacking either forward or Cavanaugh

until due process plays out you know who does deserve to be attacked the

Democrats who have weaponized an alleged sexual assault victims apparent trauma

to attack a Supreme Court nominee whose only sin seems to be that he was

nominated by President Donald Trump it's disgusting reprehensible and

deserves to be looked into that's exactly what's going to happen according

to Arkansas Republican Senator Tom cotton appearing on CBS Face the Nation

on Sunday cotton reamed Democrats for failing to

uphold the confidentiality that Ford had requested when she first made her

allegations against Cavanaugh they have betrayed her cotton said she has been

victimized by Democrats on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett

Kavanaugh regardless of the veracity of Ford's accusations it's in arguable that

Democrats have opted to use her plight in an attempt to take down Cavanaugh one

of the tactics that Democrats have been accused of as supplying Ford with

lawyers who were looking to serve the Democratic Party before their own client

Mitchell were you even told that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to

fly out to your home to meet you Ford's attorney who also represents Andrew

McCabe she doesn't have to answer that remember how the Cavanaugh hearing was

initially delayed because Ford did not want to fly from California to

Washington Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley apparently made it crystal

clear that the GOP was willing to bring the

hearing to her in California did Ford's lawyers supplied by Democrats

intentionally not tell her that important bit of information to drag the

process into the midterms I am NOT saying they did but if it smells like a

duck and looks like a duck it's not an iguana cotton was not about to let that

type of behavior fly however Democratic leadership pointed her to lawyers who

lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to

California to interview her cotton said on Face the Nation cotton then dropped

some bad news on those lawyers those lawyers are going to face a DC bar

investigation into their misconduct cotton said ouch they should absolutely

be investigated if they mislead their client in any way shape or form to help

out the Democrats attempts to derail the Cavanaugh investigation that is

antithetical to everything the American justice system stands for everything the

Democrats have done to stop Cavanaugh from being nominated has had zero

repercussions that may be about to change in massive fashion and it could

not have happened to a nicer bunch of people

For more infomation >> Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report - Duration: 3:28.

-------------------------------------------

The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 2:19.

For more infomation >> The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 2:19.

-------------------------------------------

The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 1:44.

For more infomation >> The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 1:44.

-------------------------------------------

These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 4:56.

So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under

oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.

When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week she identified herself as a

"psychologist."

And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.

After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed under oath,

Ford opened her testimony saying, "My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor

of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University

School of Medicine."

The problem here is the word "psychologist."

Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.

And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously

in the psychological field and under California Law.

Here is more on this via Dangerous:

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify

publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process

that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous

exams.

To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent

of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California.

A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides

a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any

variation of spelling on Ford's name.

If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed

to call herself a "psychologist" but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until

it was renewed.

However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they

were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.

Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern

California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside

the state.

She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California

in 2009.

She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of

Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University

appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"

and rushed to cover for Ford.

DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's

faculty directory.

On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved

to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with

her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in

the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's

email address and phone number.

This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information

and title after she entered the national spotlight."

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California

law.

California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws

for practicing psychology.

Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent

himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except

as otherwise provided in this chapter."

Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when

the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of

services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology

consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,

For more infomation >> These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 4:56.

-------------------------------------------

Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As - Duration: 6:12.

So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under

oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.

When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week

she identified herself as a "psychologist."

And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.

After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed under oath,

Ford opened her testimony saying, "My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor

of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University

School of Medicine."

The problem here is the word "psychologist."

Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.

And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously

in the psychological field and under California Law.

Here is more on this via Dangerous:

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify

publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process

that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous

exams.

To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent

of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California.

A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides

a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any

variation of spelling on Ford's name.

If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed

to call herself a "psychologist" but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until

it was renewed.

However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they

were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.

Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern

California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside

the state.

She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California

in 2009.

She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of

Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University

appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"

and rushed to cover for Ford.

DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's

faculty directory.

On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved

to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with

her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in

the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's

email address and phone number.

This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information

and title after she entered the national spotlight."

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California

law.

California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws

for practicing psychology.

Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent

himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except

as otherwise provided in this chapter."

Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when

the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of

services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology

consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,

For more infomation >> Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As - Duration: 6:12.

-------------------------------------------

Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 1:08.

For more infomation >> Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 1:08.

-------------------------------------------

Feinstein Fights FBI From Discovering Ford's Sick Secret, Trump Makes Her Regret It - Duration: 6:47.

For more infomation >> Feinstein Fights FBI From Discovering Ford's Sick Secret, Trump Makes Her Regret It - Duration: 6:47.

-------------------------------------------

Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission - Duration: 5:22.

For more infomation >> Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission - Duration: 5:22.

-------------------------------------------

Who's Cashing In Ford's Massive GoFundMe Earnings And Dark Money To Smear Kavanaugh(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 10:09.

Who's Cashing In Ford's Massive GoFundMe Earnings And Dark Money To Smear Kavanaugh

Miss Boise Ford has now raised this is pretty amazing five hundred and thirty

thousand dollars on a GoFundMe page which does raise some important

questions who set the page up the site just indicates that it was quote

sponsored by her neighbors and colleagues and isn't it fair to ask with

another long week in front of us has this GoFundMe created a new incentive

for accusers and are we witnessing a new precedent involving major financial

rewards for people who make such claims to answer these questions let's bring in

constitutional law expert Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley Jonathan

what's your reaction we the GoFundMe page first is there an incentive issue

here that should be concerning also with the swarmers and the in the senate they

apparently got chip flake to you know put on a pair of depends and like Rhonda

Kunz of twenty minutes later so are we creating

bad incentives here well you know I wrote about this for the first time in

the hill newspaper when lanny davis announced sort of rolled out a GoFundMe

type page but for michael cohen and suddenly a huge amounts of money were

put into that account and as an attorney it really struck me is quite odd because

you could have people effectively in a market for witnesses you can buy a

witness effectively by funding them as long as they're saying the type of thing

that you want them to say so michael cohen goes out and says i'm now you know

out to get the president I'm going to implicate him in crimes and money pours

into this account as his attorney flogs the internet site for donations and

we're seeing that now more and more where people essentially invest in key

witnesses so that they become part of this legal process by making it more

likely that folks are going to not only take a certain approach to testimony but

they essentially are competing against each other in this market you're going

to get more nation's threat you are and so this

whole aspect of GoFundMe is relatively new and really the our ethical rules

haven't really caught up to that you know we we have all types of rules about

the classic situation where someone gives you money for testimony but this

is a new creature for us this idea that millions of people can effectively pay

you to take a particular position yeah well Jonathan there's two hundred

thousand dollars that has been raised in an account for her security she's very

concerned about her security apparently so

two hundred thousand dollars in that and then the five hundred and thirty

thousand in this general page and just for people who missed this there was a

moment where her lawyers were they were asked a question about is someone paying

for your attorneys fees let's watch this I believe you said it hasn't been paid

for yet is that correct

let me put an end to this mystery her lawyers have paid for her polygraph

doctor for do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you

I'm not sure yet I haven't taken a look at all of the costs involved in this I'm

aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to

figure out how to manage those because I've never had one I'm sort of remember

what go fund me go fund B do with that both occur counsel are doing this pro

bono we are not being paid and we have no expectation of being five hundred

thirty thousand dollars is that to cover the gas from Rehoboth Beach to

Washington I mean what are we the Koch I mean the cokes were free I think got to

here I mean what where does that money go on I mean I think this is a

legitimate question to ask no one wanted to touch of course the character of of

the accuser for a variety of reasons you don't want to victimize a victim or an

alleged victim and I get that but we don't have journalists who were

interested in in and you know what was she like in high school I mean is that

not relevant when you're making an accusation thirty six no one wanted to

touch that but on this it would seem that everybody should be

interested in this if someone is making a lot of money off of this particular

case yeah we're in a very strange place right now ethically you know GoFundMe

sites and then similar sites and I really do help people pay for important

public interest work and projects so I'm not criticizing that but we really do

need to have some type of standard as attorney set these up in terms of where

the money goes to what you can say in order to induce people to get to give

money to these sites those are really raising some new questions and I think

they're pretty darn troubling well there could be fraud involved also correct

with a GoFundMe you know appeal there could be some type of fraudulent intent

I mean fraud in the inducement I mean there could all be all sorts of things

involved here but again it is an it is new territory Jonathan Turley thank you

so much thank you I want to know where that money's going so badly it's pro

bono that means free let's not get the money later I am still a lawyer oh these

delay tactics and eleventh-hour accusations against Kavanaugh seem a

little too convenient at least to me and that's probably because they are they're

well coordinated and extremely well-funded America rising a Republican

research group has been diving into the latest anti Cavanaugh efforts and found

there is one particular bad actor behind many of the smears former Hillary

Clinton and Eric Holder staffer Brian Fallon joining us now to navigate the

web of anti Cavanaugh dark money is the researcher who compiled this report

Alexandra Wilks and on set with me is former Clinton advisor and pollster Mark

Penn Alexandra give us a rundown of how this group it's called demand justice

which is led by Fallon is the tip of the anti Kavanagh spear so in judge

Cavanaugh's great opening statement he was mocked by some liberals by claiming

or for claiming that there's this calculated effort to smear him and he's

not wrong the Liberals have been leaving all kinds of breadcrumbs for us to trace

so as you mentioned Brian Fallon he found a demand justice he was the face

of Hilary Clinton campaign you saw him all

over the 2016 effort after that campaign wrapped up in the spring of 2018 he

founded demand justice and his goal was to defeat whoever president Trump

decided to choose as his nominee for the Supreme Court so again we're dealing

with an organization that didn't even look to see what qualifications this

person would have they didn't care they were gonna defeat anyone he goes to

George Soros for first and seed money he gets it and I'll let you I'll let you

jump in before I tell the next part of the story no so Soros Soros then comes

in and we don't know how much he gave him or do we do we have those facts well

so here's the thing um you know for as much as Democrats like to lament dark

money and by dark money we're talking about money that comes from 501 C 4

organizations these are contributions that are unlimited to these

organizations and undisclosed these groups were popularized by the great

decision and citizens united you know so we're talking about Democrats who

apparently deplore dark money but they have set up not one level not two levels

but three levels of secrecy in setting up this project five demand justice is a

project of the 16:30 foundation those are both C fours and it's partnered with

Hillary Clinton's onward C 4 as well that means that all of their filings are

obscured within each other's tax returns and we can't see them ah so that's the

rub mark you've thought and spoken about how some of this could and I say could

backfire on the Democrats I know you're gonna do some new polling over the

weekend look I don't think it's a surprise that there are groups on the

Democratic side they genuinely opposed this domini and the entire list of

Federalist Society dominates and there are groups on the Republican side we are

here because a professor wrote a letter and senator Feinstein wrongly held that

letter but that's really why we're here and I think the public wants some

certainty here questions have been raised even

President Trump says the professor's testimony was credible and I think

probably Senator fake did the right thing maybe this is you know this is

supposed to just take a week maybe it'll just confirm maybe it'll turn up

something new but I think people wanted more certainty before this vote and I

think they're gonna get that this Brian Fallon knows particularly well obviously

is partisan but to say things like this as he did in

a tweet yesterday if the Senate ignores Ford and tries to muscle an attempted

rapist onto the court not even allege an attempted rapist onto the court they

will pay dearly this November focusing on Collins and Gardiner Cavanaugh will

not serve for life do you think that's good language look I think that we are

searching for some national unity here quotes like that are not going to get us

there I agree with that I hope that after this investigation and the vote we

can come together and stop this kind of rhetoric all right guys thanks so much

thank you god bless you and God bless america