“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” submits Rachel Mitchell in a five-page-long memo obtained by The Washington Post.
Below are 12 massive inconsistencies listed in Ms. Mitchell’s devastating memo:
- Witnesses Corroborate Not Ford, But Kavanaugh’s Stance
- Ford Keeps Changing Her Story On When The Alleged Attack Occurred
- Ford Didn’t Name Kavanaugh As The Attacker Until Now
- Ford Has Changed The Description Of The Trauma She Allegedly Suffered
- Ford Can’t Recall Key Details That Could Corroborate Her Story
- Ford Has Changed Her Story About The Alleged Attack
- The Number Of People She Says Were Present At The Party Keeps Changing
- Ford’s Recent Memory Is Full Of Gaps
- Stated Reasons For Coming Forward Are Not Consistent
- Ford’s Polygraph Is Suspect
- The Claimed Psychological Effects Of The Trauma Keep Changing
- Ford’s Lawyers Probably Affected Ford’s Story
Republicans agreeing to another redundant (#7) FBI investigation of Brett Kavanaugh was a mistake. Democrats’ aim was to postpone the nomination rather than to determine what did or did not happen 36 years ago. Not one of the previous six investigations turned up anything. “What would be fishy,” writes Jason L. Riley in the WSJ, “is if the seventh background check turned out any differently.”
For details to on each of Ms. Mitchell’s 12 inconsistencies go here.