Rachel Mitchell statement on Brett Kavenaugh hearing. Detailing her opinion of ford's responses

[vla1ne]

putting it here because i know it'll end up here eventually

 

the prosecutor hired to question Christine blasey ford, Rachel mitchell has released a document detailing her summary and detailed opinion of the responses given to the questions that she asked. Anybody following politics recently knows about the entire debacle of brett Kavenaugh and the 4 alleged sexual assault cases, and while we don't have any real questions relating to the last 3 accusers, the first accuser has now been fully questioned, and her questioner, whose credentials include bringing down sex trafficking rings belonging to drug cartels, and defending/prosecuting sex trafficking victims/perpetrators. her words hold the weight of years of experience, and as such, should not be taken lightly.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf

 

 

[spoiler=My own opinion of the event in question]

 So after watching the case unfold, the opinion that i've come to at this point, is that they're all (as in the accuser, the senators, and quite a few of the coverage channels) full of sheet. the story is false, and while i'm the type who's always willing to hear out an argument, there's nothing at all about the statements made, the people who came forth, or the timing of any of this, that makes any of it feel remotely credible.

 

my opinion on the last 3 cases is the same as above, they're all bullshit. period.

 

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

She spent 27 years fighting for and defending sexual assault victims. But she admitted she's a registered republican so that apperently discredits her

[vla1ne]

 she admitted she's a registered republican so that apperently discredits her

Anybody saying that is straight up missing the point. No matter her background, her statement, and the timeline both, back everything she says. she was neither biased or unfair in her assessment, she only uses what was plainly said, and what is clearly inferred by ford's own words and accusations.

 

This file is a tombstone in the first case. Pushing it further will only open up the strongest counter lawsuit in history. The second, third and fourth accusations can be investigated, but you'd think one of them would have come to light in the past 6 investigations, especially the alleged drugs, at least a year of organized gang rape, and supposed gay orgies.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Anybody saying that is straight up missing the point. No matter her background, her statement, and the timeline both, back everything she says. she was neither biased or unfair in her assessment, she only uses what was plainly said, and what is clearly inferred by ford's own words and accusations.

 

This file is a tombstone in the first case. Pushing it further will only open up the strongest counter lawsuit in history. The second, third and fourth accusations can be investigated, but you'd think one of them would have come to light in the past 6 investigations, especially the alleged drugs, at least a year of organized gang rape, and supposed gay orgies.

Fact doesn't matter anymore Vla1ne, in America 2018, you are guilty until proven guilty. 50% of this country will always think that Kavanaugh is a rapist, just as they do Justice Thomas, even though the FBI cleared the latter. 

 

Quinnipiac Poll:  % rightly saying Kavanaugh "is target of a politically motivated smear campaign"

 

Yes 49%

No 45%

 

You're preaching to the choir here. She's a prosecutor who specializes in sexual crime cases. She has a whole career of advocating for legitimate sexual assault allegations. She's gone after cartels and coyotes. To dismiss her analysis and specific facts displays a blind partisanship, but that's where we are right now

 

From a democrat senator:

 

"She is working for the Senate Republicans. It doesn’t matter what “conclusions” she draws. The fix is in."

 

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/1046602897042083840

 

The fix is in, he's right, the fix that we live in a stalinist hell hole with no due process. All we can do is do as Sen Ghrahm suggested and keep these filth out of power they want so badly

[vla1ne]

 

"She is working for the Senate Republicans. It doesn’t matter what “conclusions” she draws. The fix is in."

 

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/1046602897042083840

 

The fix is in, he's right, the fix that we live in a stalinist hell hole with no due process. All we can do is do as Sen Ghrahm suggested and keep these filth out of power they want so badly

 

Yet he can't name even one thing that ford said that checks out with the evidence availible. Calling her partisan has no value. she used only facts, hard logic, and actual statements to propose her conclusion. Nothing she said is even remotely controversial, and everything she said is backed by facts, logic, and the actual video evidence. If the democrats wanted a prosecutor to examine Brett, they had every right, and all the time in the world to hire one. Especially considering Feinstein had already given ford her very own pair of lawyers before the allegations (or the 6th investigation) even came out in full.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

Fact doesn't matter anymore Vla1ne, in America 2018, you are guilty until proven guilty. 50% of this country will always think that Kavanaugh is a rapist, just as they do Justice Thomas, even though the FBI cleared the latter.

 

This has always been the case. From the time that people were able to spread information to other people this has been the case. Media, of whatever form, has always had the power to make people believe something no matter what.

Not giving thoughts on the case itself as I would need to look into it more but I feel it's important to not make such claims because it can color an entire debate especially if you lead off with it.

[vla1ne]

There's full interviews on the net. He explains everything about his notebook. he gets asked stupid leading questions like "do you wish she'd never come forward?" and "If you like alcohol, does that mean you enjoy getting black out drunk?". seriously, it was a kangaroo court, and he had every right to be as pissed as he has been these past few days.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This has always been the case. From the time that people were able to spread information to other people this has been the case. Media, of whatever form, has always had the power to make people believe something no matter what.

Not giving thoughts on the case itself as I would need to look into it more but I feel it's important to not make such claims because it can color an entire debate especially if you lead off with it.

No I mean like the FBI literally did a investigation of justice thomas and cleared him in 1991, and the left still calls him a rapist. It really is guilty until proven guilty

[Dad]

The funniest part about this thread is Justice Thomas, and all the "he had a right to be angry" bullshit.

 

Clinton was too emotionally unstable to serve as President but a grown man seething with rage and ranting incoherently about his love for beer is Justice where it's due.

 

Not to mention Thomas' weak ass likened his hearing to a funking lynching. I hope the three of you have daughters.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The funniest part about this thread is Justice Thomas, and all the "he had a right to be angry" bullshit.

 

Clinton was too emotionally unstable to serve as President but a grown man seething with rage and ranting incoherently about his love for beer is Justice where it's due.

 

Not to mention Thomas' weak ass likened his hearing to a funking lynching. I hope the three of you have daughters.

I won't raise her to slander and ruin men's lives because she dislikes their politics

 

What they did to Justice Thomas is a lynching, or a high tech lynching as he put it. They made him out to be a rapist in front of the nation, with no proof, and by ignoring his vindication. This is exactly the filth that happened to black men in the jim crow south. Do you know what Emmett Till was accused of?

 

I hope your dismissive ass never has to deal with the sheet he was put through. Shame on you.

 

 

Always worth a watch

[vla1ne]

The funniest part about this thread is Justice Thomas, and all the "he had a right to be angry" bullshit.

 

Clinton was too emotionally unstable to serve as President but a grown man seething with rage and ranting incoherently about his love for beer is Justice where it's due.

 

Not to mention Thomas' weak ass likened his hearing to a funking lynching. I hope the three of you have daughters.

In short words: Name one good reason that he shouldn't be angry.

 

A man, a father, and a judge, falsely accused, after an honest life, will rightfully be incensed when they are treated by their peers, as if they had been convicted, before any trial ever occurs. Add on top of that, the death threats to his daughters, and their decision to pray for the people who put them through hell, instead of holding a grudge. this man being moved to tears is the natural result of two weeks of absolute bullshit from the twilight zone.

 

 His enjoyment of beer (something many grown adults in america can attest to) was literally used to attack him. telling him he can't fire back after attacking him on the topic is plain foolish. you gonna complain about him calling out trap questions? The where's your complaint about the question"Do you wish she had never come forward with these allegations" aka one of the most leading questions asked? Where's your rationale against him describing, in complete detail, the devils triangle drinking game, when they attempted to grill him on it? Where's your assessment of his easily confirmed explanation of FFFF being a verbal tick of his friend who swore a lot? Where's your criticism of ford's obviously false tears? Where's your logic when everybody that she herself named, denies the party that she alleges ever happening? Where's your complaint for her therapist note being vastly different than her senate testimony? 

 

 

Many people in history have been publicly hanged for crimes they didn't commit (most popularly during the salem witch trials). This isn't a literal lynching, but the moniker of this being a social lynching fits perfectly. They've attacked his character with baseless allegations, and slandered him with more of the same when he responded with rage towards them. What's so weak about a man who made it through this before speaking out against it again?

 

 

Her testimony can specify neither when she was at said party, what house said party was at, who brought her home, why her best friend at this supposed gathering, never questioned why she left in such a strange manner, or why she was at a gathering of 4(sometimes 6) people. That's while neglecting the more modern lies, like the fear of flying, the continuous change in setting (One was during the school year, the other was during the summer), the safeway she claims to have encountered for at wasn't even open during the year(s) she claimed she met him there, the year itself has changed multiple times now, ect. Bring more than slander if you want to make a point. This is he say she say, and she hasn't said any thing credible to date. unless you heard something she said that actually proves the event happened?

 

I can punch holes in her story all day long, and the only thing you have here is emotion. You know better than that.

[Dad]

Idk about her. I know Kavanaugh's embarrassing and unhinged. I didn't say sheet about Ford.

 

And Till was attacked for the color of his skin AND for whistling at a white woman. The rape accusation was later.

 

I don't give a funk about another rich white man who's "a father". Just like you don't give a funk about the people who really are victims. You not bouta meet me with that sheet.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sorry, I forgot Clarence Thomas was a redneck. Mea Culpa /s

 

Justice Thomas was lynched in front of the nation. That's all there is to it

[Phantom Roxas]

A man, a father, and a judge, falsely accused

 

I'm going to stop you right there.

 

We do not know for certain whether these accusations are true or false. While you have given your opinion that the accusations are bullshit, keep in mind that is just that: Your opinion. The merits of your belief are neither greater nor worse than anyone who does believe that these accusations are true. As such, it is inappropriate to speak as if he is indeed being falsely accused. You are speaking from your own assumptions, not from decisive facts.

 

If he is being falsely accused, then yes, he can be angry because of that. However, if these accusations are sincere, then it is possible that he is angry because he does not want to be held accountable for his actions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm going to stop you right there.

 

We do not know for certain whether these accusations are true or false. While you have given your opinion that the accusations are bullshit, keep in mind that is just that: Your opinion. The merits of your belief are neither greater nor worse than anyone who does believe that these accusations are true. As such, it is inappropriate to speak as if he is indeed being falsely accused. You are speaking from your own assumptions, not from decisive facts.

 

If he is being falsely accused, then yes, he can be angry because of that. However, if these accusations are sincere, then it is possible that he is angry because he does not want to be held accountable for his actions.

We have a career prosecutor who has advocated for and prosecuted for sex victims for 27 years, going up against everyone from cartels to elected officials saying that Ford's case lacks merit and that she could not find a feasible way to bring it to court. You can't prove a negative, you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt tho. Which is what happened here.

 

You want to lynch a man based on politics, and in the case of dad, take pleasure while doing it. It's a sick lynching

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You all are going to have to step away from this discussion for now unless you can reign it in and get back into something actually suitable for the section.

 

Several posts in a row of this is far too much. Either discuss this civilly as a debate or don't discuss it at all.

 

Edit: Last couple posts weren't bad

[Phantom Roxas]

We have a career prosecutor who has advocated for and prosecuted for sex victims for 27 years, going up against everyone from cartels to elected officials saying that Ford's case lacks merit and that she could not find a feasible way to bring it to court. You can't prove a negative, you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt tho. Which is what happened here.

 

You want to lynch a man based on politics, and in the case of dad, take pleasure while doing it. It's a sick lynching

 

Holding a man accountable for his actions has nothing to do with "lynching", least of all based on politics. Since Mitchell has given her assessment, then if there is merit to be had in Ford's case, then I would ask her to provide more that could be useful towards any future investigations.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Holding a man accountable for his actions has nothing to do with "lynching", least of all based on politics. Since Mitchell has given her assessment, then if there is merit to be had in Ford's case, then I would ask her to provide more that could be useful towards any future investigations.

Which she has not. So unless you wanna operate off guilty until proven innocent Kavanaugh is free to go. She won't even share half the important material like her therapist notes....this is a sham

[vla1ne]

Idk about her. I know Kavanaugh's embarrassing and unhinged. I didn't say sheet about Ford.

 

And Till was attacked for the color of his skin AND for whistling at a white woman. The rape accusation was later.

 

I don't give a funk about another rich white man who's "a father". Just like you don't give a funk about the people who really are victims. You not bouta meet me with that sheet.

If I filed a suit saying you tried to rape me, would you take that lying down? Would you be the picture perfect image of composure? And it's worse than that, one accuser claimed he ran a literal gang rape ring for nearly a year. Those accusations lead to people sending his kids death threats and tormenting his wife. Would you take that lying down, like a cow on the farm ready to get killed? I doubt it.

 

 

And how does that make his statement any less relevant? The accusation was false then, and the current accusations are groundless now. Till is his senior in this experience. Being dragged through the mud happened to him, so he would be the most credible voice on the topic o a high tech lynch mob.

 

 

Kavanagh is a legitimate victim in this case. You know what the topic of this discussion was when you jumped in, you swung at his character instead of the facts, and I not only explained why his character is currently flawless, but why he’s absolutely innocent and why the accusers are flat out lying. I don’t much care what you think I care about. Bring facts when you pop sheet here. You have yet to say anything even remotely capable breaking down the topic of this thread. I may not care, but you can’t even form a proper argument.

 

 

 

I'm going to stop you right there.

 

We do not know for certain whether these accusations are true or false. While you have given your opinion that the accusations are bullshit, keep in mind that is just that: Your opinion. The merits of your belief are neither greater nor worse than anyone who does believe that these accusations are true. As such, it is inappropriate to speak as if he is indeed being falsely accused. You are speaking from your own assumptions, not from decisive facts.

 

If he is being falsely accused, then yes, he can be angry because of that. However, if these accusations are sincere, then it is possible that he is angry because he does not want to be held accountable for his actions.

Ever hear about the words innocent until proven guilty? Until you prove him guilty, he is being falsely accused. It does not matter If it’s at a trial, or at an interview. If you don’t bring proof, you don’t have a case. End of story. So where’s the evidence proving him guilty? Because I’ve demonstrated repeatedly why the first claimer is false, and 6 FBI investigations later, he’s still got a spotless background as relating to all current accusations. So until any of his accusers bring forth legitimate arguments, i'm going to keep calling him falsely accused.

[Phantom Roxas]

Ever hear about the words innocent until proven guilty? Until you prove him guilty, he is being falsely accused. It does not matter If it’s at a trial, or at an interview. If you don’t bring proof, you don’t have a case. End of story. So where’s the evidence proving him guilty? Because I’ve demonstrated repeatedly why the first claimer is false, and 6 FBI investigations later, he’s still got a spotless background as relating to all current accusations. so until any of his accusers bring forth legitimate arguments, i'm going to keep calling him falsely accused.

 

That is not how that works. Until a trial is held, he is neither falsely accused nor truthfully accused. He is simply accused. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accusation is either true or false.

 

You may like to call him "falsely accused", but it's still completely inappropriate.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That is not how that works. Until a trial is held, he is neither falsely accused nor truthfully accused. He is simply accused. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accusation is either true or false.

 

You may like to call him "falsely accused", but it's still completely inappropriate.

That's not how this works.

 

A prosecutor could not find a reasonable way to bring charges against him. When they can't bring charges against you, you're deemed innocent, not guilty....

 

 

Ex. I accuse you of rape. There's not a shred of proof. The SanFran DA doesn't bring charges against you. You're not "accused" legally, you're innocent and I'm a piece of sheet ethically 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Whatever actually happened the truth, as far as I can tell again haven't looked into it enough, we don't really have any kind of evidence that it happened. Without anything to use they can't really hold a trial. If there's not enough evidence to hold a trial then the assumption has to be innocent.

Otherwise there would be no point in having a law system.

 

Now do I think he's a beacon of purity? Eh, probably not. But we can't just go off how we feel for this stuff. Even if he IS guilty it would be wrong to punish without proper evidence.

 

And now two people (yes both sides) lives are likely ruined because there's large groups of people on both sides who will detest them. This is the true danger of accusations. True or false.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He best friend can't recall it.

 

One of his friends, and her ex can't recall it

 

Judge can't recall it.

 

She doesn't know a time or date.

 

......

 

This does not, guilty, a man make. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say neither Dad nor Roxas would want to be judged under the same standard that Kavanugh is being mauled under.

 

If the Dems really cared about Ford, why hold on to the mail and not even ask Kavanaugh in private? Feinstein met with him twice. Unless of course you think Ford leaked the details, which means she perjured herself. It's just vicious politics. 

[vla1ne]

That is not how that works. Until a trial is held, he is neither falsely accused nor truthfully accused. He is simply accused. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accusation is either true or false.

 

You may like to call him "falsely accused", but it's still completely inappropriate.

There is more than enough evidence, verbal evidence, and physical evidence, proving that he is innocent. By far, there is more evidence in favor of his story than hers. Her accusation is flat out false at this point, because there is not a single part of the accusation that ford has brought forth that even remotely implicates him being the perpetrator.

 

Her time isn't straight, she has changed the time from school to summer and back, and she's skipped from late 80's to early 80s multiple articles, meaning she has no set range to hold her accusation in. She cannot even describe the house, or who lived there, which means there's no possible way to analyze the setting. She cannot remember who drove her home, despite the difficulty of actually calling a ride back then, meaning that route of questions goes down the drain. Not a single person she named as present was there, meaning her story has been refuted 4 times over, by everybody she claims was present, including her best friend (whom she would have left at the party in a distressed state, which would have been memorable). All of these things speak against her claim, and demonstrate that Brett has been accused falsely by the simple virtue of her story not even being credible. On top of that, brett denies any such party ever occurred, and has a literal planner from all those years ago, with not one page of any year listing her, or her friend being present at any gatherings. On top of THAT, we have 6 (count em) prior FBI investigations backing his claim of being free of any such dirt. Meaning that he himself has more evidence backing him that she does in relation to the case. As it stands, the evidence points to her being a liar. Unless you have something different on your radar?

 

 

A falsely accused man, is the same as an innocent man for all intents and purposes here. If you accuse me of anything in a court of law, until you prove it was me, i am innocent, and if your accusation has no barbs to hold me, then until you have any such barbs, the moniker of being falsely accused is a 100% fit. At this point, whether the event in question even happened, is still up in the air, much less that it was Brett who did it. Saying he's been falsely accused, especially with all of the fact based conclusions above, is an unassailable stance for at the very least, the ford accusation.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

This does not, guilty, a man make. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say neither Dad nor Roxas would want to be judged under the same standard that Kavanugh is being mauled under.

This. This is the stuff that you need to stop doing. You're making it personal. Don't.

 

And Roxas, Dad, don't respond to this. Anyone continuing on with this type of thing will be punished.