Prosecutor's 'Reprehensible' Memo Proves GOP Aimed to Put Accuser Christine Ford on Trial - Not Brett Kavanaugh

Prosecutor's 'Reprehensible' Memo Proves GOP Aimed to Put Accuser Christine Ford on Trial  -  Not Brett Kavanaugh

Rich text editor, edit-body-und-0-value, press ALT 0 for help.

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.

Rachel Mitchell’s report confirms that as far as the GOP was concerned, Christine Ford was on trial. The memo contains not a single word on Kavanaugh’s testimony and its vast array of inconsistencies and outright lies. This is reprehensible. https://t.co/iMNYJR6nKx

— Jeff Yang (@originalspin) October 1, 2018

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.

1. This is a hearing on Kavanaugh's qualifications & fitness, not a criminal prosecution
2. Rachel Mitchell was rendered irrelevant once the men stopped yielding their time
3. A fair & uninterrupted cross of #Kavanaugh would've explored his lies under oathhttps://t.co/iC0k3kkB9p

— Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) October 1, 2018

This 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’s the veracity of his claims that count. He’s the person being considered for a lifetime appointment. https://t.co/F8BxmuBS9P

— Shaunna Thomas (@SLThomas) October 1, 2018

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.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close