Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from NaturalNews from getting to our readers. We recommend GoodGopher.com as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or ProtonMail.com as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.
10/01/2018 / By JD Heyes
Perhaps one of the smartest and politically strategic moves made by Republicans attempting to shepherd Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the high court was to hold another Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week giving him and his chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, an opportunity to be heard by the public.
Ford, you recall, has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago at some sort of gathering, somewhere, at some time – all details she has yet to recall.
For his part, Kavanaugh has staunchly denied the allegations and during his Q & A with the committee, explaining that, essentially, he has prepared his entire life for this appointment. In short, being a serial sex abuser or rapist, as he’s also been accused, never factored into that preparation.
In addition to the decision to hold the hearing, Republican leaders – we’re looking at you, Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa – were equally brilliant to call in a female sex crimes specialist to question Ford on their behalf, to take away a key Democratic post-hearing talking point (“Did you see how all those old, angry white guys were berating poor Ms. Ford?” – add a dose of incredulity).
Never mind that the only abuse heaped on Ford came compliments of the Democrats – we’re looking especially at you, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, for leaking/not leaking/exploiting Ms. Ford’s confidentiality so you could derail Kavanaugh’s nomination because you fear he may someday side with a high court majority and take away your “right” to kill babies in the womb.
As for Mitchell, she has just issued a report on her findings from the hearing, The Gateway Pundit reports. To say that it exonerates Judge Kavanaugh is as much of an understatement as it is to say that she excoriates Democrats for their abuse.
The report notes a dozen or so inconsistencies in Ford’s accusations, even portraying portions of her testimony as fraudulent (though not necessarily intentionally so).
Here are some of the report’s findings:
— “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
— “Dr. Ford struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
— “When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
— “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.”
— “She does not remember in what house the alleged assault took place or where that house was located with any specificity.”
— “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”
All of this led Mitchell to conclude, “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.” (Related: The new, deranged narrative of the America-hating media: If Brett Kavanaugh defends himself, he’s not qualified to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Mind you, this finding comes from a professional sex crimes prosecutor with 25 years’ worth of experience handling such cases.
Mitchell also points an accusatory finger at the Democrats. “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected her account” of the alleged incident, meaning that their actions were more those of a handler than a factual facilitator of the account. That, in turn, affected Ford’s truthfulness.
It’s even more than just a simple “he said, she said;” it’s more like, “she said, they said,” because at least four of the so-called witnesses to the alleged assault have denied it ever happened. Some have denied knowing Kavanaugh at all, as he has denied knowing them.
To conclude, Mitchell sums up her findings this way: “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case on the evidence before the committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
So, case closed? Hardly. The Democrats won’t allow it.
Read more about the White House’s response to the Kavanaugh character assassination at WhiteHouse.news.
Tagged Under: Brett Kavanaugh, character assassination, democrats, exoneration, investigation, no corroboration, Rachel Mitchell, report, Republicans, Senate Judiciary Committee, special prosecutor, Supreme Court