In a memorandum to Republican senators, Rachel Mitchell says a “reasonable prosecutor” would not bring a case against Brett Kavanaugh based on Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation given the evidence presented to the Judiciary Committee.
But Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans who questioned Ford last Thursday, also notes, “A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution.”
Mitchell cites inconsistencies in Ford’s statements to the committee, The Washington Post, and her therapist about the alleged assault, which Ford alleges took place when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.
Mitchell also notes the lack of corroboration of Ford’s account, including recalling details that could back her story.
Mitchell says Ford’s account of her age at the time has varied, and raises questions about her recollection of some events, but noted her inability to remember details such as how she got to and from the party where the alleged assault occurred.
Mitchell, in the five-page memorandum, also raises concerns about what she calls inconsistencies in Ford’s description of events. Those include how many people were at the party and whether she could hear a conversation between Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other partygoers following the alleged assault, which both Kavanaugh and Judge – whom Ford alleges was in the room during the incident – deny ever took place.
Mitchell also says in the report, “the activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Mitchell summarized her report for the committee.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” she wrote. “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.”