To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Maricope County sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh came to a conclusion regarding whether she would advise a criminal prosecution against the judge--not whether he deserved a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: @NECN/Twitter)
A memo from Maricopa County sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony on allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, revealed late Sunday that Mitchell would not advise a criminal prosecution for Kavanaugh--obscuring the reality of the consequences Kavanaugh currently faces if the FBI finds evidence that he has committed sexual assault or perjured himself in any way.
The memo claims a "reasonable prosecutor" would not pursue Ford's case, and includes five pages of Mitchell's observations about perceived holes in her story of the alleged sexual assault which took place in the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school.
But while Mitchell offered her thoughts on the believability of Ford's testimony, she included nothing about Kavanaugh's belligerent statement and refusal to answer direct questions from Senate Democrats during his appearance last Thursday--strongly suggesting that it was Ford, not Kavanaugh, who was on trial during the hearing.
\u201cRachel Mitchell\u2019s report confirms that as far as the GOP was concerned, Christine Ford was on trial. The memo contains not a single word on Kavanaugh\u2019s testimony and its vast array of inconsistencies and outright lies. This is reprehensible.\u201d— Jeff Yang (@Jeff Yang) 1538366117
The document's conclusion also flies in the face of what numerous political observers have pointed out in recent days--that the question of criminally prosecuting Kavanaugh is irrelevant, because a Senate hearing is not intended as a criminal trial. The purpose of Democrats in the Senate was not to build a case to bring charges against Kavanaugh, but only to help determine if he warrants a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
\u201c1. This is a hearing on Kavanaugh's qualifications & fitness, not a criminal prosecution\n2. Rachel Mitchell was rendered irrelevant once the men stopped yielding their time\n3. A fair & uninterrupted cross of #Kavanaugh would've explored his lies under oath\nhttps://t.co/iC0k3kkB9p\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1538366625
\u201cThis is so irresponsible and plainly flawed. But this dishonest memo aside, the person Rachel Mitchell should be writing a memo about is Brett Kavanaugh. It\u2019s the veracity of his claims that count. He\u2019s the person being considered for a lifetime appointment.\u201d— Shaunna Thomas (@Shaunna Thomas) 1538364878
The memo was released as an FBI probe into Ford's claims and those of Deborah Ramirez, who alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her in college, got underway. The Senate Judiciary Committee was forced to call for an investigation on Friday after it became clear that the Republicans did not yet have enough votes to bring Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. However, according to reports, the White House has severely limited the scope of the investigation.
Last week, Mitchell questioned Ford on her allegations, but her participation in the hearing was cut short when Republican senators began questioning Kavanaugh--and defending him against the claims.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
A memo from Maricopa County sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony on allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, revealed late Sunday that Mitchell would not advise a criminal prosecution for Kavanaugh--obscuring the reality of the consequences Kavanaugh currently faces if the FBI finds evidence that he has committed sexual assault or perjured himself in any way.
The memo claims a "reasonable prosecutor" would not pursue Ford's case, and includes five pages of Mitchell's observations about perceived holes in her story of the alleged sexual assault which took place in the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school.
But while Mitchell offered her thoughts on the believability of Ford's testimony, she included nothing about Kavanaugh's belligerent statement and refusal to answer direct questions from Senate Democrats during his appearance last Thursday--strongly suggesting that it was Ford, not Kavanaugh, who was on trial during the hearing.
\u201cRachel Mitchell\u2019s report confirms that as far as the GOP was concerned, Christine Ford was on trial. The memo contains not a single word on Kavanaugh\u2019s testimony and its vast array of inconsistencies and outright lies. This is reprehensible.\u201d— Jeff Yang (@Jeff Yang) 1538366117
The document's conclusion also flies in the face of what numerous political observers have pointed out in recent days--that the question of criminally prosecuting Kavanaugh is irrelevant, because a Senate hearing is not intended as a criminal trial. The purpose of Democrats in the Senate was not to build a case to bring charges against Kavanaugh, but only to help determine if he warrants a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
\u201c1. This is a hearing on Kavanaugh's qualifications & fitness, not a criminal prosecution\n2. Rachel Mitchell was rendered irrelevant once the men stopped yielding their time\n3. A fair & uninterrupted cross of #Kavanaugh would've explored his lies under oath\nhttps://t.co/iC0k3kkB9p\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1538366625
\u201cThis is so irresponsible and plainly flawed. But this dishonest memo aside, the person Rachel Mitchell should be writing a memo about is Brett Kavanaugh. It\u2019s the veracity of his claims that count. He\u2019s the person being considered for a lifetime appointment.\u201d— Shaunna Thomas (@Shaunna Thomas) 1538364878
The memo was released as an FBI probe into Ford's claims and those of Deborah Ramirez, who alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her in college, got underway. The Senate Judiciary Committee was forced to call for an investigation on Friday after it became clear that the Republicans did not yet have enough votes to bring Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. However, according to reports, the White House has severely limited the scope of the investigation.
Last week, Mitchell questioned Ford on her allegations, but her participation in the hearing was cut short when Republican senators began questioning Kavanaugh--and defending him against the claims.
A memo from Maricopa County sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony on allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, revealed late Sunday that Mitchell would not advise a criminal prosecution for Kavanaugh--obscuring the reality of the consequences Kavanaugh currently faces if the FBI finds evidence that he has committed sexual assault or perjured himself in any way.
The memo claims a "reasonable prosecutor" would not pursue Ford's case, and includes five pages of Mitchell's observations about perceived holes in her story of the alleged sexual assault which took place in the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh and Ford were in high school.
But while Mitchell offered her thoughts on the believability of Ford's testimony, she included nothing about Kavanaugh's belligerent statement and refusal to answer direct questions from Senate Democrats during his appearance last Thursday--strongly suggesting that it was Ford, not Kavanaugh, who was on trial during the hearing.
\u201cRachel Mitchell\u2019s report confirms that as far as the GOP was concerned, Christine Ford was on trial. The memo contains not a single word on Kavanaugh\u2019s testimony and its vast array of inconsistencies and outright lies. This is reprehensible.\u201d— Jeff Yang (@Jeff Yang) 1538366117
The document's conclusion also flies in the face of what numerous political observers have pointed out in recent days--that the question of criminally prosecuting Kavanaugh is irrelevant, because a Senate hearing is not intended as a criminal trial. The purpose of Democrats in the Senate was not to build a case to bring charges against Kavanaugh, but only to help determine if he warrants a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
\u201c1. This is a hearing on Kavanaugh's qualifications & fitness, not a criminal prosecution\n2. Rachel Mitchell was rendered irrelevant once the men stopped yielding their time\n3. A fair & uninterrupted cross of #Kavanaugh would've explored his lies under oath\nhttps://t.co/iC0k3kkB9p\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1538366625
\u201cThis is so irresponsible and plainly flawed. But this dishonest memo aside, the person Rachel Mitchell should be writing a memo about is Brett Kavanaugh. It\u2019s the veracity of his claims that count. He\u2019s the person being considered for a lifetime appointment.\u201d— Shaunna Thomas (@Shaunna Thomas) 1538364878
The memo was released as an FBI probe into Ford's claims and those of Deborah Ramirez, who alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her in college, got underway. The Senate Judiciary Committee was forced to call for an investigation on Friday after it became clear that the Republicans did not yet have enough votes to bring Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. However, according to reports, the White House has severely limited the scope of the investigation.
Last week, Mitchell questioned Ford on her allegations, but her participation in the hearing was cut short when Republican senators began questioning Kavanaugh--and defending him against the claims.