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.
-------------------------------------------
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. -------------------------------------------
Sen. Hirono is Asked if Dems Leaked Ford's Letter – Her Answer Speaks VOLUMES - Duration: 2:12.
During an interview with ABC, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono refused to deny that the Democrats
leaked Dr. Ford's letter.
Today, Senator Tom Cotton announced that Senator Dianne Feinstein would be investigated for
the leak, as rumors swirl that one of her high-level staffers is responsible.
The Democrats want to play a game here, pretending that 1) Ford's sketchy allegations are credible
and 2) this entire sham is not political.
They truly think the American people are stupid.
Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono would not deny that Democrats leaked Ford's letter
-------------------------------------------
Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10.
For more infomation >> Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10. -------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------
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. -------------------------------------------
BREAKING: Christine Ford Wrote 2008 Article Teaching Hypnosis To Create "ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS" - Duration: 4:00.
The story of the college professor who serves as the foundation for the slime and destroy
attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to present more questions
than answers despite what the media would lead the public to believe.
While Christine Blasey Ford disproved many skeptics when she showed up in Washington
last week for her hotly anticipated testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her
demeanor has been described by some as strange and possibly coached or rehearsed.
Or maybe it was something else, something that could be far more sinister.
According to a bombshell report from Sean Davis of The Federalist, Dr. Ford was the
co-author of a 2008 study that – get this – examined the use of " hypnosis to "assist
in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create artificial situations"
for treatment.
Which begs the question as to the role of such hypnosis in the memories of Ford's
evidence-free accusations of Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge.
Via The Federalist, "Kavanaugh Accuser Co-Authored Study Citing Use Of Hypnosis To Retrieve Memories":
Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980's, co-authored an academic study that cited the
use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.
The academic paper, entitled "Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and
Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial," described the
results of a study the tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals.
The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.
While the paper by Ford and several other co-authors focused on whether various therapeutic
techniques, including hypnosis, alleviate depression, it also discussed the therapeutic
use of hypnosis to "assist in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create
artificial situations" to assist in treatment.
Ford's paper cited a controversial 1964 paper on the use of hypnosis to treat alcoholics
and claimed that "hypnosis could be used to improve rapport in the therapeutic relationship,
assist in the retrieval of important memories, and create artificial situations that would
permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner."
The study by Ford and her co-authors also used "self-hypnosis" to help treat their
randomized sample of patients.
Read the entire article HERE.
According to the abstract from the study, "Meditation with yoga, group therapy with
hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial"
the authors are listed as:
Lisa D. Butler Lynn C. Waelde T. Andrew Hastings Xin‐Hua Chen Barbara Symons Jonathan Marshall
Adam Kaufman Thomas F. Nagy Christine M. Blasey Elizabeth O. Seibert David Spiegel.
It's a helluva find considering how so much of Ford's history seems to not be readily
available online.
As of Monday evening and even with the FBI now conducting yet another investigation into
Kavanaugh, Ford and her backers STILL have not provided the all-important therapy notes
that have been taken as gospel by the media, the political left, the media and likely the
triad of Flake-Collins-Murkowski.
To quote "Alice In Wonderland" author Lewis Carroll, things are becoming "curiouser
and curiouser!"
And this study is most curious indeed…
-------------------------------------------
JUST IN: Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 0:51.
Senator Tom Cotton has just announced that he's turning over Dr. Ford's lawyers to
the D.C.
Bar Association to be investigated.
The reasoning is because Dr. Ford said she was not aware that Senate investigators had
advised they would be happy to travel to California to meet with her.
If true, her lawyers withheld this information from the client.
Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, also said lawyers recommended to Christine Blasley Ford
by Democrats will face a Washington, D.C., Bar investigation for telling her that committee
staffers would not travel to California to interview her about her alleged assault.
"They have betrayed her," Cotton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh."
-------------------------------------------
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,
-------------------------------------------
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. -------------------------------------------
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,
-------------------------------------------
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. -------------------------------------------
Stunning Results from Kavanaugh Accuser's Odd Polygraph Just Released – Could Ruin Everything - Duration: 4:57.
For more infomation >> Stunning Results from Kavanaugh Accuser's Odd Polygraph Just Released – Could Ruin Everything - Duration: 4:57. -------------------------------------------
Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44.
For more infomation >> Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44. -------------------------------------------
Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As She - Duration: 6:45.
For more infomation >> Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As She - Duration: 6:45. -------------------------------------------
After Ford's Lawyer Tells Major Lie, DC Bar Association Delivers Devatating News - Duration: 4:50.
For more infomation >> After Ford's Lawyer Tells Major Lie, DC Bar Association Delivers Devatating News - Duration: 4:50. -------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 11:30.
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT
developments in the confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh the white house
giving the FBI the go-ahead to expand its investigation of the Supreme Court
nominee by interviewing anybody at deems necessary this is a source tells Fox
News the bureau's probe could wrap up as early as tomorrow president Trump's
standing by his nominee in light of the latest FBI review this is now their
seventh investigation so it's not like they you know just starting I want them
to do a very comprehensive investigation whatever that means according to the
senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority I want them to do
that I want it to be comprehensive I actually think it's a good thing for
Judge Kevin Orr now with that being said I'd like it to go quickly and the reason
I'd like it to go quickly very simple it's so simple because it's unfair to
him at this point meanwhile after demanding this FBI probe
Democrats are predictably complaining that it's not good enough there's time
you know the thing is that every Senate vote matters and there's there's time to
get to the bottom of it even if is seven days that's bad enough but then to limit
the FBI as to the scope and who they're going to question
plus the Arizona prosecutor we saw at the hearing last week is dealing a blow
to Democrats Rachel Mitchell details in a memo why
she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh saying it's even
weaker than quote he said she said all right Dana you missed this on vacation
this Cavanagh situation still happening I kept tabs on it a little bit was able
to you know they have some wife that thing called Wi-Fi over there in Spain
it is an absolutely remarkable week and it's one thing Greg I think you'll mind
I reveal our text I said I can't believe that I'm missed that week and he said
that's okay next week will be worse
so extremely compelling and some interesting polling came out today from
Quinnipiac who's saying that 48% of people polled voters polled said they do
not think it should be confirmed 42% did but 56% think he is being this is part
of a political smear campaign and I can't remember the other number and so
you're gonna see some more polling on this there are basically four senators
now that this comes down to Murkowski Blake Collins and then Manchin and
president Trump was in West Virginia over the weekend there's incredible
pressure on senator Manchin because his constituents at a number that is like
astronomical want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed who take a risk for Brett
Kavanaugh this week but for his nomination not for him personally is
that now the hearings done now we've got this FBI investigation as you said the
Democrats saying well that's not good enough the Senator McConnell saying
today we will vote this week and in the meantime you basically have dead air for
Brett Kavanaugh President Trump speaking so passionately about his nominee today
from the Rose Garden helps fill that gap a little bit but the news cycle moves so
fast President Trump has a rally tonight he's got one again tomorrow how long can
he keep this going it's really important I think for the nominee and for
President Trump to keep it in the news on their terms
well he's high-energy enough so I think he can fill the void this Mitchell
report Emily that came out and she was you know nonpartisan sex crimes
prosecutor who the Republicans brought in she released this letter that said
some really interesting things that she would never ever bring charges in a case
like this and it is incredibly wreak week for a number of reasons right and I
thought multiple things about that report so first of all we're already
hearing backlash that she even submitted a report which I found preposterous
because what is she gonna do text from the plane like thanks guys that's a wrap
this was out sourced by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans for her
to do a job so of course she's going to issue a report and I'm also hearing a
lot of backlash from other prosecutors saying well this wasn't a proper
investigation and that's not the appropriate standard but the bottom line
is the absolute best with what she was
given and the investigation in that closed world
she used the preponderance of an evidence standard which is the lowest
and note this that to bring charges as a prosecutor you the the standard for that
is that you have a reasonable belief that the charges are supported by
probable cause and then also that admissible evidence is supported by
beyond a reasonable doubt and that it's in the interest of justice so she used
basically the lowest possible standard giving it the lowest barter cross and
still found it insufficient so I found the report absolutely telling and that
she should be given a lot more credence than she is so what are the Democrats
out of bullets here we've had hearing after hearing we he's produced more
documents and answered more questions than any SCOTUS nominee and in history
and now we have a seventh FBI background check is that gonna be enough well check
your history I mean we've had much longer confirmation battles in our
history but I mean to me what you're seeing here one I am amazed at what you
just said about this prosecutor from Arizona not being partisan she was
brought in because there were all male Republicans and she was brought in by
the Republican side by definition there's a take her partisan yes it does
and and and in fact as I recall Lindsey Graham cut her up because he thought she
wasn't being effective and now she decides she's going to try to redeem
herself with her Republican buddies by issuing this report which has no
standing because it wasn't based on any kind of investigation or anything beyond
what she was able to gather at this hearing from Democrats that they liked
this woman and she did it was gentle if you perma Democrats were so there the by
peers but here's the thing I think the key point is the look at the poll
numbers that Dana referred to you look at the Fox polling Quinnipiac you look
at Harris Harvard it's all the same people don't believe Cavanaugh they do
believe her I think that's what that's I mean unless you start different Paul I
mean it's the question of much more clearly what I got is in the Fox poll
has fifty percent do not confirm thirty six percent believe Ford not Cavanaugh
I think it's become tribal Dana I think it's absolutely become traveling in the
latest polling what you see is an uptick in terms of the number of Republicans
who are back encounter previously by though is amazing to me they didn't back
Kavanagh to the extent they back Neil Gorsuch this is not a popular nominee
but now in the midst of the tribal warfare you see it tick up and it takes
up among Democrats as well the key question for me though yeah in terms of
what we go forward is what is the standard because what we've seen is now
I think it's for people who knew Kavanagh either at high school or
college or saying he wasn't forthcoming and truthful about his drinking so if
you hold you this standard now you're going to get Democrats who are going to
say this is a matter of character for someone we're putting on the court for a
lifetime appointment and this guy's lying about his drink know a lot about
any drinking 100 here's the beer standard the drinking standard Ted
Kennedy comes to mind Greg what do you think where to start I hate the fact
that we are using polling to gauge someone's innocence that is this is not
a job interview this is now the Coliseum in which we turn to the crowd on whether
or not I'm gonna give the thumb up or the thumb down they didn't just move the
goalposts here they just turned over the gameboard because they knew they were in
trouble to the point about the if he's lying about booze what else is he lying
about argument well it's clear that dr. Ford lied about a number of things as
well you can call them inconsistencies that's the nice polite way of saying
lies whether it was about about plane travel she only has a fear of flying
when it's not on vacation the polygraph she wasn't sure when it
was she said it was a devastating experience but there were two questions
the plane that she never got a lawyer an offer from the Republicans like Grassley
to take to have the meeting over they're giving notes to reporters changing
bystander to not bystander there's a lot of in I'll be diplomatic and say
inconsistencies to her otherwise credible testimony that's how you talk
apparently so if his lies about booze which I do
believe he fibbed about his drinking because he's talking about his drinking
in front of his wife and kids and I'm sorry I do the same thing when I when my
wife asks me how much I drank over the weekend while she's away I say not much
honey and Yeah right so the fact is those lies
have nothing to do with the actual accusation but we're talking since we're
talking about alcohol abuse let's talk about the media and the Democrats who
are obviously alcoholics because they completely blacked out the last five
days they do not remember that the third accuser has a history of lying and
sexual misconduct claims lying about unemployment lying about her education
but they don't seem to remember the avenatti bombshell from last week which
is now a bombshell that she lied about her background but that's somehow they
forget they blacked out about that they blacked out about the Rachael Mitchell's
a memo worthy we're covering it all the early reason we're covering it because
no one else is because they blacked out these are huge things that the media
cannot remember because they don't want to remember it
it's it's disgusting you know what though I mean you listen to the
president today the president's now engaging in just the kind of angry
bullying babe Oh Cory buck way down Richard Blumenthal is a liar so all
these Democrats they aren't angels over there i I know I've seen them in
compromise that great though it's next wait they said great this is let me tell
you we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee and a man and a family totally
denigrating the whole process it's now done corroborated we're destroying a
person's life an uncorroborated accusation that's right
your your talk you're focusing is if this is just that that's all about no
that's all it's about you will destroy somebody over a seat I could have the
seat I would say I'll tell you I've got bullets in me from trying to defend
someone when I thought they were unfairly be I'm alive but I'm going to
tell you this when you look at Cavanaugh you have to you just said you think he's
fibbing about the drinking yes you've got to speak to a man's or woman's care
doesn't stuck with them in the street the director of a guy like trying to
slow down the exaggerations over over beer a to the point on that though Greg
where's the yearbook you guys stuff in there about remember on the yearbook
remember about the devil astronomy when he turned baffi yes no you were here
excellent you were selling books while we basically went through that entire
drinking it's not a sexual position popping is not sexual being and it's
flatulent know what we're gonna ask me how I know I see your yearbook my poll
was here but please you don't have to go that far
thank you god bless you and God bless america
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét