This is most definitely going to inflame the Democrats because it blows a hole in the narrative. Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Ford last week, laid out in a clear five-page memo for the Committee all the inconsistencies in Christine Blasey Ford’s story, noting that she would never bring charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh based upon what was on the table.
Mitchell noted that this was “even weaker” than a “he said/she said” case because the witnesses, named by Ford, actually refute or don’t corroborate her case.
From Daily Wire:
“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Mitchell states. “But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Here are the problems detailed by Mitchell.
1. Ford isn’t consistent on when the assault ever occurred.
She varies, with multiple descriptions, telling the WaPo the “mid-1980s,” Feinstein “early 80s,” the polygraph statement “high school summer in early 80’s” with early then crossed out, the WaPo “summer of 1982.” Notes from a therapy session she provided the WaPo said “late teens” but she told the WaPo and the Committee she was 15. And she’s refused to turn over the therapy notes. While one might be unclear about a date, “Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.”
2. She didn’t actually name Kavanaugh in the therapy notes in 2012 and 2013 and then the odd question where she says that “her husband recalls that she used the name.”
3. She testified that she told her husband that she had experienced a “sexual assault” before they were married. But she told the WaPo that she told him she had experienced “physical abuse” before they were married. She said she was referring to the same thing.
4. What she doesn’t remember are key details that could prove (or disprove) her claim.
She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
But then she remembers small details that wouldn’t prove or disprove her case, such as that she had one beer and took no medications.
5. None of the people she alleged to be at the party have corroborated her claim or even that there was such a party.
Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). During the hearing she claimed there was another boy but she couldn’t recall the name.
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.
6. Ford’s story about what happened has not been consistent.
In her letter to Feinstein, she said he heard Kavanaugh and Judge talking to other people at the party while she was hiding in the bathroom. But during testimony, she said she couldn’t hear them.
And she’s been inconsistent about describing who was at the party with multiple versions.
According to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.
7. Ford had trouble recalling important recent actions relevant to making her claims.
She couldn’t recall if she showed her therapist’s notes to the WaPo (she did). And she refused to show the Committee the therapist’s notes.
She said she wanted it to remain confidential but she actually called the WaPo tipline before she told anyone else and despite saying that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president” she contacted her representative, not Feinstein first.
She said she couldn’t remember if she was recorded while she was taking the polygraph.
And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
Mitchell also makes the point that it’s professionally wrong to administer a polygraph to someone grieving.
8. There are questions about her alleged psychological effect of the ‘assault.’
While claiming a fear of flying, she flies frequently for work and hobbies, she flies to the Mid-Atlantic and has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica as well as to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
It’s not clear that her attornies ever told her about Chairman Grassley’s offer to have people fly to California to interview her.
She doesn’t say that she had problems in the rest of high school while she says this contributed to issuses in college.
She implied there were other issues that contributed to her symptoms but when asked about them, she wouldn’t list other issues, noting none was a “striking as” this.
9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:
Here’s the “timeline” referred to in Mitchell memo: pic.twitter.com/mhY3Dif8bD
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 1, 2018
It’s hard to go through everything and draw the conclusion that it actually happened, at least the way she says.
There are just too many inconsistencies and things that don’t make sense.