hearing on Thursday. On Monday, the Washington Post released a memo that Rachel Mitchell, the sex criminal activities district attorney who questioned Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday, sent out to Senate Republicans with her analysis from the hearing.
Throughout Ford’s statement, observers kept in mind how even-handed Mitchell’s questioning appeared to be given the partisan nature of her role. Her questions to Ford often appeared to penetrate for disparities meant to weaken Ford’s credibility. As Ford was cautious with her words, so was Mitchell, and she stopped short of forming those concerns into fully recognized arguments that could have made her appear to be assaulting an alleged sexual assault victim. Her tone toward Ford was considerate and client. And for the short period she was permitted to question Kavanaugh, she made a show of being willing to question his account, too– to the point that But as Mitchell specified in her memo, her evaluation of Ford’s allegations were mainly held to standards she would use in a criminal case. Simply as Democrats have actually consistently highlighted that a confirmation hearing is a task interview, rather than a prosecution, Mitchell highlighted that she was working within a legal context and might not talk to the requirements of a political procedure like a Supreme Court nomination. The tip, for that reason, is that her legal opinion should not be considered as an official conclusion. It will likely still be touted by Republicans before the complete Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.– Seung Minutes Kim(@seungminkim) October 1, 2018 Each of the points
she raises in the memo quickly might be challenged on its own. They include:< p data-editable=text data-uri=slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjmqjs3zp001k3h5zo8v24v76@published data-word-count=96 > – Minor disparities about the time frame in which the declared attack occurred and the variety of people at the celebration; – Ford’s failure to keep in mind some details about the party, including how she got house; – Her delay in naming Kavanaugh when
talking about the assault in therapy; – The statements by supposed witnesses saying they did not keep in mind the celebration; – Her choice not to offer her treatment keeps in mind to the committee;
– Her claims of having a worry of flying, while likewise having actually taken flights for holidays; and – Questions about her reasons for revealing her accusations against Kavanaugh. But beyond demonstrations against these points, critics were more baffled by the lack of Kavanaugh from the memo itself. He was only discussed in recommendation to Ford’s statement, and while Mitchell was pulled from questioning Kavanaugh early in his turn prior to the committee, she had the ability to ask him some concerns about the compound of his account– concerns that touched on inconsistencies. The memo does seem intended to provide recognition for any Republican senators with doubts about casting their votes with the party, however there is always a chance– undoubtedly a fairly little one, offered the tight constraints– that a reopened FBI background investigation might offer evidence to counteract some of the pro-Kavanaugh messaging of this dubiously independent outside prosecutor.