Senate GOP's Outside Counsel Says 'Reasonable Prosecutor' Would Not Bring Case Against Kavanaugh


Rachel Mitchell, the outside prosecutor hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to lead the questioning of Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, has sent out a memo arguing that a "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring a case against Kavanaugh based on Blasey's allegations.

Blasey went before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and said she was certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. Her hourslong testimony, in which she answered queries from Democratic senators and from Mitchell on behalf of Republicans, was considered widely credible.

Democrats have argued that the hearing isn't a criminal trial and that the question isn't whether Kavanaugh can be legally charged, but whether the judge is being honest about his past behavior while under oath.

"We are here for one reason, to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to one of the most powerful positions in our country," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, said last week. "This is not a trial of Dr. Ford. It's a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh. Is Brett Kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country? Is he the best we can do?"

Mitchell wrote in her memo that her assessment of the hearing focuses strictly on law and "legal context." She acknowledged that "there is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate's confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford's allegations in that legal context."

In a recent YouGov survey, Americans said, 41 percent to 30 percent, that they believed Blasey was telling the truth; they were split, 35 percent to 38 percent on whether Kavanaugh was similarly honest.

Still, Mitchell, an Arizona prosecutor specializing in sex crimes, outlines in her memo what she believes are inconsistencies in Blasey's testimony, according to multiple outlets which obtained the memo.

"A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," Mitchell writes in the memo, which the Washington Post and CNN obtained. "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."

Mitchell argues that Blasey has "not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened"; has "struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name"; and "has no memory of key details of the night in question."

She also wrote that she believes "the activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account."

Mitchell's memo ― which is addressed to all Republican senators ― doesn't analyze Kavanaugh's testimony, during which he denied the allegations against him, attacked the partisans who raised them, and portrayed himself as an aggrieved victim.

The memo, news of which first surfaced Sunday night, also comes after the White House formally asked the FBI to reopen its background investigation into Kavanaugh on Friday. Committee Republicans had shocked observers by agreeing in a last-minute move prompted by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to request a formal investigation into the claims of misconduct.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday voted to advance the nomination of Kavanaugh.

Two other women have also come forward with accusations of misconduct against Kavanaugh, which he has also denied.

Ryan J. Reilly, Elise Foley and Nina Golgowski contributed to this report.

This article has been updated to include additional comments by Mitchell and Feinstein.


More Related News

House panel subpoenas McGahn on Mueller inquiry
House panel subpoenas McGahn on Mueller inquiry

Former White House counsel Don McGahn is called to testify as the House probes possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.

House panel chair subpoenas ex-White House counsel McGahn on Mueller inquiry
House panel chair subpoenas ex-White House counsel McGahn on Mueller inquiry

U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler on Monday subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before the panel in its investigation of possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Nadler, a Democrat, said the committee had asked for documents from McGahn by May 7 and for him to testify on May 21. A report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller publicly released on Thursday by the Justice Department said Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller as he was investigating suspected Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination between Trump campaign members and Moscow officials.

Supreme Court to Decide If Anti-LGBT Discrimination Is Already Illegal
Supreme Court to Decide If Anti-LGBT Discrimination Is Already Illegal

REUTERSIs anti-LGBT discrimination a form of sex discrimination?That is what the Supreme Court said Monday it will decide next fall, when it hears three cases on anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace.  And with Justice Kavanaugh having replaced Justice Kennedy, the outcome is totally unknown.First, let's remember what these cases are not about.  They are not about whether it's a good thing to fire someone for being gay or trans.  In fact, a whopping 69% of Americans say it should be against the law to do so.The trouble is, it isn't.  In fact, under federal law, and in 14 states, it is perfectly legal for my boss to say "Wait a minute-you're gay?!  You're fired."  That is exactly what...

Supreme Court takes up major gay, transgender job discrimination cases
Supreme Court takes up major gay, transgender job discrimination cases
  • US
  • 2019-04-22 14:26:40Z

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether U.S. law banning workplace discrimination on the basis of sex protects gay and transgender workers, as the conservative-majority court waded into a fierce dispute involving a divisive social issue. At issue in the high-profile legal fight is whether gay and transgender people are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin and religion. The court will take up two cases concerning gay people who have said they were fired due to their sexual orientation, one involving a New York skydiving instructor named...

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: Latin America

Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.