Saturday, September 29, 2018

Rachel Mitchell said she would not prosecute Kavanaugh based on Ford’s testimony

Despite the lack of corroborative evidence, the court of public opinion remains divided on the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. To a member of the legal community, however, this same lack of evidence is a bit more dispositive.

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned both Ford and Kavanaugh in Thursday’s Senate hearing, has privately stated that, based on the testimony she heard, she would not bring legal action against Kavanaugh, according to the Washington Post.

Unable to prosecute

Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor with vast experience in the area of sexual abuse, was hired by Republicans of the Senate Judiciary Committee to interview Ford. That she did on Thursday, despite the criticism of the left, who blasted the move as an unscrupulous tactic.

Mitchell, however, was anything but that. As she proceeded, it became clear that her one goal was to unearth the facts, and she did so with utmost professionalism, helping Ford to feel as comfortable as possible.

For her efforts, she received the praise of Republicans. “I thought she did a good job getting the basic facts out,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

The left, however, continues to disagree with the choice to use Mitchell, arguing that this is not a legal trial.

Wouldn’t even get off the ground

Democrats, however, should be thankful that this is not being handled in the courts. After the long day of testimony, Mitchell privately told GOP senators that Ford would get nowhere in a legal proceeding against Kavanaugh for sexual abuse. The obvious reason for this is the lack of corroborative evidence.

On Thursday, the nation watched as, for the first time, Ford publicly testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the substance was nothing new: Ford maintained that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, when both were teenagers, at a house party that occurred in the summer of 1982, while Kavanaugh maintained his innocence.

A key difference, however, is the evidence: Ford has no corroborative evidence, while Kavanaugh has very detailed calendar-diaries that show no record of such a party. Additionally, three of Ford’s fact-witnesses – Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and Leyland Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford’s – say that they have no recollection of what Ford is talking about. Keyser further said that she does not even know Kavanaugh.

According to Mitchell, no evidence equals no case.

The non-legal trial

But, as has been stated, Kavanaugh is not in a courtroom. He is being judged by the Senate, and ultimately, the people, both of whom are not restricted by the fair proceedings demanded by the judiciary.

Further, Kavanaugh’s public trial is occurring during the #metoo movement, which has led an almost unrebuttable presumption that the accused is guilty: innocent until proven guilty has been replaced by guilty until proven innocent. Hence, there are those who continue to believe Ford, and to condemn Kavanaugh, despite the lack of evidence.

A further, another limited FBI investigation has now been called in order to further examine the allegations. But it is unlikely that anything is going to change … except for the date on the calendar.

No comments:

Post a Comment