Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FM123

(10,053 posts)
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:30 AM Sep 2018

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
2. A 30 plus year old case
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:41 AM
Sep 2018

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.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
4. And if on a jury, I probably would not convict him.... BUT.....
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 09:45 AM
Sep 2018

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.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
5. I don't believe sassey....with the lack of information - no FBI investigation
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 10:39 AM
Sep 2018

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..

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In Post Mortem With GOP, ...