Outside counsel tells GOP 'reasonable prosecutor' would not bring Ford case against Kav

[AzogtheDefiler]

Mitchell tells Republican senators "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring Ford case against Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics

Mitchell cites inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.


Mitchell says Ford's account of her age at the time has varied, and raises questions about her recollection of some events, but noted her inability to remember details such as how she got to and from the party where the alleged assault occurred.

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," she wrote. "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."

Bottom line --- only one person to blame here ---- DIANE FEINSTEIN!!!!

She could have easily shared the letter with the FBI and had them investigate the verasity. Instead she went to the press knowing that she could win in the court of public opinion but not in a court of law. What an underhanded and evil person she is.

 

[kyzr]

Actually MD refuses to do anything with Ford's accusation as well. There is nothing to discuss or consider. Just vote Kav on the USSC already.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Actually MD refuses to do anything with Ford's accusation as well. There is nothing to discuss or consider. Just vote Kav on the USSC already.

I want Feinstein and her dirty team investigated.

 

[DGS49]

Anyone who has spent considerable time in criminal courtrooms knows that "believable" liars are a dime a dozen. Which is why the criminal justice system demands corroborating evidence before going forward with a case like this.

 

[Claudette]

Well this case would never be put forward by a Grand Jury or an honest lawyer.

No proof. No witnesses and its 36 years old.

Now way would this ever make it into a courtroom.

Not in a million years.

 

[iceberg]

Mitchell tells Republican senators "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring Ford case against Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics

Mitchell cites inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.


Mitchell says Ford's account of her age at the time has varied, and raises questions about her recollection of some events, but noted her inability to remember details such as how she got to and from the party where the alleged assault occurred.

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," she wrote. "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."

Bottom line --- only one person to blame here ---- DIANE FEINSTEIN!!!!

She could have easily shared the letter with the FBI and had them investigate the verasity. Instead she went to the press knowing that she could win in the court of public opinion but not in a court of law. What an underhanded and evil person she is.

yet the left will spin this again.

WE MUST BELIEVE WOMEN suddenly turns into WE MUST BELIEVE OUR WOMEN ONLY!!!

'I believe Rachel'. In rush to discredit Rachel Mitchell, Buzzfeed Legal Editor trips over #MeToo and ROFL

 

[boilermaker55]

You are confusing a criminal justice case with the investigation of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two mutually exclusive items.
Enough said.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You are confusing a criminal justice case with the investigation of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two mutually exclusive items.
Enough said.

So it’s OK in your book to falsely accuse people. Enough said. You’re a moron. Feel free to move to Canada.

 

[Crixus]

Mitchell tells Republican senators "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring Ford case against Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics

Mitchell cites inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.


Mitchell says Ford's account of her age at the time has varied, and raises questions about her recollection of some events, but noted her inability to remember details such as how she got to and from the party where the alleged assault occurred.

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," she wrote. "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."

Bottom line --- only one person to blame here ---- DIANE FEINSTEIN!!!!

She could have easily shared the letter with the FBI and had them investigate the verasity. Instead she went to the press knowing that she could win in the court of public opinion but not in a court of law. What an underhanded and evil person she is.

An unreasonable prosecuter wouldn’t bring this case. No DA’s office would touch this with a 10’ pole. No grand jury would indict. In 2017 Chuck Schumer threatened legal action against some dudes who accused him of sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh should sue the Ford ho and her Democrat handlers into oblivion like Schumer wanted to do his accusers.

 

[BluesLegend]

And as for the lie detector test, go back to the video testimony when the prosecutor questioned Ford on this, the lie detector test was given a few hours after a funeral, watch the prosecutor's reaction.

 

[Crixus]

And as for the lie detector test, go back to the video testimony when the prosecutor questioned Ford on this, the lie detector test was given a few hours after a funeral, watch the prosecutor's reaction.

This is why the dems put the quack lady back in her box. They know her lie won’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[bodecea]

Mitchell tells Republican senators "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring Ford case against Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics

Mitchell cites inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.


Mitchell says Ford's account of her age at the time has varied, and raises questions about her recollection of some events, but noted her inability to remember details such as how she got to and from the party where the alleged assault occurred.

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," she wrote. "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."

Bottom line --- only one person to blame here ---- DIANE FEINSTEIN!!!!

She could have easily shared the letter with the FBI and had them investigate the verasity. Instead she went to the press knowing that she could win in the court of public opinion but not in a court of law. What an underhanded and evil person she is.

Well, considering this ISN'T a court case, that's nice dear.

 

[williepete]

WE MUST BELIEVE WOMEN suddenly turns into WE MUST BELIEVE OUR WOMEN ONLY!!!

 

[boilermaker55]

Listen spermburper. If you don't know the facts of anything don't feel you can intimidate others by showing your complete f*cking ignorance.
Enough said to you.
Kneel and gulp some more of "the gropenfhurers" liquid.

You are confusing a criminal justice case with the investigation of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two mutually exclusive items.
Enough said.

So it’s OK in your book to falsely accuse people. Enough said. You’re a moron. Feel free to move to Canada.

 

[kyzr]

Post #13 is EXACTLY the position the idiot GOPs in the Senate need to hammer home. Then hammer it more...

 

[task0778]

You are confusing a criminal justice case with the investigation of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two mutually exclusive items.
Enough said.

Enough said for you maybe, but not for many other people. So tell me, why should we treat the confirmation of a SCOTUS appointment any differently from a criminal case? I've seen many posters say the confirmation decision is not being done in a court of law, so the normal rules for justice don't apply. But the penalties and consequences are severe for the accused if he's not confirmed, so what's your rationale? If not confirmed, what do you think the odds are that he wouldn't be sued somewhere in a court of law for sexual misconduct? Why should we suspend the presumption of innocence, somebody want to explain that? Should we really deny somebody any job based on nothing more than an allegation? Think about it, you're up for a promotion where you work, but at the last minute a woman accuses you of grabbing her ass in the elevator where it was just the two of you and it was 35 years ago. And the boss says ok, no promotion for you bub. Fair?

 

[g5000]

Mitchell tells Republican senators "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring Ford case against Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics

Mitchell would be the woman whose skirts the Republican men hid behind. What a bunch of cowards!

Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford's account, including recalling details that could back her story.

Thus the need for an investigation. Duh!

 

[g5000]

It is very simple. Either Ford is lying, or Kavanaugh is lying.

A proper investigation will reveal who.

Some of Kavanaugh's Yale buddies are coming forward to talk about what a mean drunk he was. So there's at least one lie Kavanaugh made under oath.

How can we trust a perjurer to be a judge on any level?

 

[Claudette]

Wonder how you investigate a supposed groping that is 36 years old??

I doubt any agency can investigate it. Not when there are no witnesses and no proof.

The two witnesses Ford provided said they weren't at the party. Judge was there but was so drunk he doesn't remember anything.

Its a he said. She said and thats it. No way to prove anything and BK has already been investigated by the FBI six times. If there were something to find. They would have found it.

No DA would take this to court. No Grand Jury would ever indict and no honest lawyer would ever take this as a case.

Plus the whole thing stinks like week old dead fish.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Listen spermburper. If you don't know the facts of anything don't feel you can intimidate others by showing your complete f*cking ignorance.
Enough said to you.
Kneel and gulp some more of "the gropenfhurers" liquid.

You are confusing a criminal justice case with the investigation of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two mutually exclusive items.
Enough said.

So it’s OK in your book to falsely accuse people. Enough said. You’re a moron. Feel free to move to Canada.

When are you moving? Your post is offensive.