BuzzFeed Editor Immediately Tries To Discredit Rachel Mitchell’s Damning Independent Analysis Of Ford’s Testimony

Rachel Mitchell released her independent analysis of Ford’s testimony, and it’s damning for Democrats.

This was her “bottom line”:

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. 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.

Those reasons include:

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help
corroborate her account.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

That last point though!

You can read the entire thing here.

It took approximately 4 seconds for MSM to deem Mitchell a partisan hack. BuzzFeed’s legal editor went ballistic.

Be very clear: This is a political document, nothing more. It is not a legal document from a prosecutor. Mitchell wasn’t allowed to continue questioning Kavanaugh, has not been allowed to chase down any leads, and, in any event, this isn’t a criminal trial. https://t.co/0czI3sESwN

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 1, 2018

All the folks in my mentions: I’m not responding individually. Partisan counsel for committees write partisan “internal” memos all the time that are then obtained by journalists. They’re political documents aimed at moving the political needle, not legal documents. That’s all.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 1, 2018

The point is that Mitchell is not working as a sex crimes prosecutor here. She’s working as a partisan lawyer for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. That’s why she was hired, and that’s why she signed it using that title.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 1, 2018

In other words, because he doesn’t like her conclusion, it’s irrelevant and she was basically unqualified from the beginning.

So predictable.

I’m just gonna leave this here.

Believe women! You must believe her, it’s a rule now.

— Brian Bond (@briangbc) October 1, 2018