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

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

5 replies	Author	Time	Post
In Post Mortem With GOP, Rachel Mitchell Said As A Prosecutor She Wouldn't Charge Kavanaugh (Original post)	FM123	Sep 2018	OP
Hack prosecutor seeing there was no investigation. Of course she wouldn't have enough evidence	uponit7771	Sep 2018	#1
A 30 plus year old case	mythology	Sep 2018	#2
fFS	malaise	Sep 2018	#3
And if on a jury, I probably would not convict him.... BUT.....	Adrahil	Sep 2018	#4
I don't believe sassey....with the lack of information - no FBI investigation	asiliveandbreathe	Sep 2018	#5

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:34 AM

uponit7771 (86,766 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:41 AM

mythology (9,527 posts)

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

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:44 AM

malaise (246,614 posts)

3. fFS

She supported Arpaio

Reply to this post

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:45 AM

Adrahil (13,340 posts)

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

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 10:39 AM

asiliveandbreathe (7,031 posts)

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

General Discussion (Forum)