Rachel Mitchell – Nine Reasons Why Christine Ford’s Testimony is Not Credible

 In Politics

Even after 65 women wrote letters of support for Brett Kavanaugh, even after 18 former female law clerks testified in support of him in front of the Judiciary Committee, the left has left this nomination in chaos. Rachel Mitchell, the experienced sex crimes prosecutor the GOP chose to question Christine Ford, wrote that she did not believe that Christine Ford was credible.

[No kidding. We all figured that out from the beginning. And no one is listening.]

“In the legal context, here is my bottom line. A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence…Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell Memo by on Scribd


Breitbart reported the nine reasons. One of our favorite statements by Ms. Mitchell is: “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”

Hope to shout. Coaching a witness is very effective- it helps them “remember” by planting suggestions that 9 times out of 10 are spurious.If a relative coaches a child, for example, that someone in the family they don’t like committed child abuse, suddenly that child’s life is destroyed because they are taken from their parents, divorce, and all stability is lost. Then there is no recourse for the child, even if they recant the story that was so viciously planted in their brain. All is lost.

The Democrats deliberately used Christine Ford for their own ends. She had not recollection of where, exactly when, or even who assaulted her.  She said she was afraid of flying because of it and yet flew all over the country in her job… and to the hearings in DC even though the committee members had been willing to fly to her.

When- Where-Who are just the basic of any criminal prosecution or allegation of criminal behavior. She flunks on all three.

Mitchell laid out several areas where there were inconsistencies:

When: 1980’s, early teens, 1982, late teens, age 15? Where: some house about 20 miutes from her house, no address, no idea how she got there or how she got home, no one noticed her being upset.No one remembers the party. Who: Here’s where the coaching came in. At therapy sessions she mentioned 4 boys. Then suddenly it was two. Then there was a girl present (who remembers no party, no boys at all). “Inconsitencies” is an understatement.

Read Prosecutor Mitchell’s full report and then understand that the Democrats are pulling out all the stops not just to destroy a good man and his family, but to do it because they hate Trump. Endeavor to remember this disgusting display on November 6.

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search

usmcafacebook