HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » In Post Mortem With GOP, ...

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:30 AM

In Post Mortem With GOP, Rachel Mitchell Said As A Prosecutor She Wouldn't Charge Kavanaugh

This is BAD. Those disgusting repugs are going to use this to justify their disgusting decision.

After a full day of hearings on Thursday — and after being cast aside by Republicans during Brett Kavanaugh’s portion of the proceedings — lawyer Rachel Mitchell told Republican Senators in a GOP conference meeting that as a prosecutor, she wouldn’t charge Kavanaugh with a crime, Politico reported.


She wouldn’t even attempt to get a search warrant, she reportedly added.

Mitchell was retained by Republican Senators to question Christine Blasey Ford during the hearing on Thursday in order to avoid appearing insensitive. Mitchell, a prosecutor from Arizona, has a respected background in investigating years-old sex crimes.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) told Politico that Mitchell gave Republicans in the room a half-hour presentation on “facts that were established and not established.” According to a person briefed on the meeting, she shared her analysis of the hearing overall, but didn’t tell lawmakers how they should vote.

5 replies, 895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply In Post Mortem With GOP, Rachel Mitchell Said As A Prosecutor She Wouldn't Charge Kavanaugh (Original post)
FM123 Sep 2018 OP
uponit7771 Sep 2018 #1
mythology Sep 2018 #2
malaise Sep 2018 #3
Adrahil Sep 2018 #4
asiliveandbreathe Sep 2018 #5

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:34 AM

1. Hack prosecutor seeing there was no investigation. Of course she wouldn't have enough evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:41 AM

2. A 30 plus year old case

 

From a prosecution perspective, it's functionally impossible case to get past reasonable doubt. But this isn't a criminal case and as such has a lower bar to clear.

His temperment, the multiple accusations, the blatant lying, nothing about the guy says he should be on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:44 AM

3. fFS

She supported Arpaio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:45 AM

4. And if on a jury, I probably would not convict him.... BUT.....

 

I believe her. He did this. It happened.

And this ain't a trial. He has to convince US he's worthy of such a position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 10:39 AM

5. I don't believe sassey....with the lack of information - no FBI investigation

there is no way a CREDIBLE prosecutor would even broach the subject one way or the other...

From report above...Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) told Politico nope - ain't believing him....

I'm thinking prosecutors everywhere are going to have a field day with her..if she did express this opinion..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread