Current Events > Prosecutor who questioned Dr. Ford shreds her case in 5 page memo

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36519/prosecutor-questioned-ford-shreds-her-case-5-page-ryan-Saavedra

Mitchell's memo notes nine significant problems with Ford's testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case.

"A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove," Mitchell states. "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."

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 80s, but she crossed out the word early for reasons she did not explain.

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.

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.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in questiondetails 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.

The lying bitch
---

JTilly posted...

The lying bitch

If she can't remember and says she can't remember, how does that make her a liar?
---

JTilly posted...

The lying bitch

Which one are you referring to

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

More of a kangaroo court, frankly
---

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

TheKentster posted...

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

I'd be ok with the ends justifying the means if the "ends" didn't involve presupposition of guilt.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

TheKentster posted...

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

I'd be ok with the ends justifying the means if the "ends" didn't involve presupposition of guilt.

The "ends" I'm referring to is keeping Trump from getting another Supreme Court pick in at all costs.

Coffeebeanz posted...

TheKentster posted...

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

I'd be ok with the ends justifying the means if the "ends" didn't involve presupposition of guilt.

How is he presupposed guilty?

The commission voted him in, and they will vote for him again next week. All ford managed is to have the fbi look into it for a week, that is far for presupposing guilt

---

TheKentster posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

TheKentster posted...

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

I'd be ok with the ends justifying the means if the "ends" didn't involve presupposition of guilt.

The "ends" I'm referring to is keeping Trump from getting another Supreme Court pick in at all costs.

I meant means, obv
---

TheKentster posted...

LooksLikeDarko posted...

Might not be enough to bring forth criminal charges, but that doesn't really matter in this case. This isn't a trial

In other words, it doesn't matter if he really did it, the ends justify the means.

This isn't a court case

People are asking for an investigation.

And yes 3 seperate accusations including witnesses and a lot of circustancial evidence is enough to justify that.
---