Prosecutor Brings Final Verdict to Blasey Ford’s Story, 9 Reasons It Doesn’t Add Up

(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)

Since the Democrats accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, some people in our country instantly condemned him. Many liberals have pronounced him guilty until proven innocent, but the prosecutor who questioned both Kavanaugh and his accuser has a different verdict. She released a 5-page report, exposing the many flaws in Christine Blasey Ford’s story.

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell wrote her final verdict on Ford’s allegations. (Photo Credit: Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images, Screenshot/YouTube, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Last week, we broke the news that Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during the Senate hearing, would not pursue these allegations in court if this were a criminal investigation. Not only that, she wouldn’t even request a warrant, based on Ford’s testimony.

It blew a hole in the left’s ongoing character assassination of the Supreme Court nominee. For over two weeks, they used the liberal media to all but execute the respected judge, family man, and patriot. Liberals on social media believed the flimsy story of Ford, without any evidence or corroborating stories.

Conservatives and anyone interested in the truth have been making it very clear that at best, Ford’s story is suspicious. At the worst, she is blatantly lying. When both Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate, one thing became very clear: Ford is unwell. She seems to believe her accusations against Kavanaugh, despite any solid evidence the event happened.

Kavanaugh firmly denies anything ever happened.

Both were questioned by experienced sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell. Yesterday, Mitchell released a memo detailing why she would not bring charges against Brett Kavanaugh if this were a criminal investigation.

Her report completely exposes the unreliability of Ford’s claims. It shatters the left’s attempts to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination. And it shames every last liberal who pronounced him guilty before any of the facts were in.

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. [Source: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations, Rachel Mitchell]

Mitchell outlines nine very important reasons why Ford’s testimony did not hold water.

1: Ford could not clarify when the event actually happened.

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.”… 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…

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. [Source: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations, Rachel Mitchell]

2: Ford struggled to name her assailant.

No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes… No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes…  it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive. [Source: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations, Rachel Mitchell]

3: When describing the event with her husband, Ford changed her description to become less specific.

4: Ford had no memory of important details of the night of the event, details that would have corroborated her story.

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it… Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house… Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy… 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. [Source: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations, Rachel Mitchell]

5: Ford’s story has not been corroborated by anyone she identified.

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.” [Source: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations, Rachel Mitchell]

In addition to these reasons, Mitchell cited the fact that Ford did not offer a consistent account of the assault, she struggled to remember recent events related to the accusations, her description of the psychological impact was questionable, and the actions of Democrats related to accusations cast story into doubt.

It’s clear that Ford is either lying about the event or simply does not remember it accurately, which is to be expected when this amount of time has passed. Was she assaulted over 30 years ago? That’s not for us to say. It’s possible she was hurt as a teenager. But to believe her claims that it was Brett Kavanaugh — based on her flimsy testimony — is ludicrous.

From the expert analysis of Mitchell, we have enough reason to believe Ford’s story is unreliable at best, completely false at worse. Kavanaugh would never be prosecuted over these claims. Nor should he be barred from serving on the Supreme Court over a story that has so many holes.

Regardless of whether he is confirmed or not, it’s safe to say his reputation is destroyed. Liberals in the fake news have spread rumor as fact, and their readers believed them. It was all to help the Democrats oppose President Donald Trump.