• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Prosecutor who questioned Ford Shreds her case

L

Lectro

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
8,876
Reaction score
254
Devastating and simple to follow..even for the saps who got shook from their shekels at Wake Forest.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/3651...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


“Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.”
 
this isn't a trial, you clown

it's a job interview
 
Strickland33 said:
this isn't a trial, you clown

it's a job interview
Click to expand...

No, Dipshit..it is a show trial for Dems to smear a job candidate.

Next thing you lousy D-Rats are bound to introduce is “that it doesn’t matter if Ford lied”
 
“Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year”
 
“2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”
 
Do you?

What do you drink?

Ever don’t remember what you did when drunk?


https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F853904%2Ffb4cf226-6daa-42b7-b177-be7dbeabee93.jpg
 
Lectro said:
Devastating and simple to follow..even for the saps who got shook from their shekels at Wake Forest.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/3651...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


“Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.”
Click to expand...

Nailed it; I can live with anyone who may feel this guy is not SC material based on his performance last week but to call him a sexual predator, in my mind, needs to come off the table.
 
Rachel got paid good money for that. Nice work.
 
PhDeac said:
Rachel got paid good money for that. Nice work.
Click to expand...

So now let's go after that he drank heavily in HIGH SCHOOL/COLLEGE and was obnoxious. Now there's relevancy.

Still believe Kavanaugh is being held to the same standard as previous Dem/Pub SC nominees, Ph?
 
“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.”
 
DeacsPop said:
So now let's go after that he drank heavily in HIGH SCHOOL/COLLEGE and was obnoxious. Now there's relevancy.

Still believe Kavanaugh is being held to the same standard as previous Dem/Pub SC nominees, Ph?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t his heavy drinking in high school be relevant to his drunk attempted rape?

Of course Kavanaugh is being held to the same standard. How can you claim otherwise? Those other nominees were far higher quality people.
 
“4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly 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.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.”
 
She's my friend's boss. I wonder what it is like around the office today.
 
So a prosecutor says she would decline to prosecute a 30 year old case that lacks physical evidence, which is predominantly based on the account of the victim. Thank goodness we established that, I was hoping we would have Rachel Mitchell star in a Cold Case reboot. I didn't read the whole memo, but let me know when she states that Kavanaugh deserves to have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, because last time I checked that was the whole point of the hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top