In Post Mortem With GOP, Mitchell Said As A Prosecutor She Wouldn't Charge Kavanaugh

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo



By Nicole Lafond
September 28, 2018 8:25 am

After a full day of hearings on Thursday — and after being cast aside by Republicans during Brett Kavanaugh’s portion of the proceedings — lawyer Rachel Mitchell told Republican Senators in a GOP conference meeting that as a prosecutor, she wouldn’t charge Kavanaugh with a crime, Politico reported.

She wouldn’t even attempt to get a search warrant, she reportedly added.

Mitchell was retained by Republican Senators to question Christine Blasey Ford during the hearing on Thursday in order to avoid appearing insensitive. Mitchell, a prosecutor from Arizona, has a respected background in investigating years-old sex crimes.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) told Politico that Mitchell gave Republicans in the room a half-hour presentation on “facts that were established and not established.” According to a person briefed on the meeting, she shared her analysis of the hearing overall, but didn’t tell lawmakers how they should vote.

###

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mitchell-wouldnt-charge-kavanaugh

[dchill]

1. Says the Arpaiorepublican prosecutor.

[spooky3]

2. Gee, don't prosecutors rely on investigations? What

Investigation was done here? This woman had better hang onto to her red county job, as she will not get one elsewhere.

[C_U_L8R]

3. She didn't talk to any witnesses

There was no law enforcement (fbi) investigation, she had an East German show trial... WTF WTF

[Tiggeroshii]

30. Wouldn't be surprised if she mentioned a caveat that wasn't reported

like, "based on these two witnesses alone, I wouldn't prosecute."

[Scarsdale]

4. This was a foregone conclusion.

THAT is why she was chosen. From all accounts, her record in Ariz. prosecuting rapes is dismal. Lots of cases piling up, no DNA tests up to date. Perfect choice for the gop.

[zipplewrath]

5. But would she hire him?

Would she hire him as a prosecutor?

This is a job interview, not a grand jury.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. SCotUS confirmation has different standard. A "reasonable doubt" goes against the nominee. Or should

It's not a criminal case. There are plenty of other qualified people who can be nominated.

Bret Kavanaugh does not meet the standard.

[Freethinker65]

7. Said the prosecutor that complained about the lousy back and forth format

The format with no continuity of questioning. The format where she was tossed aside so that Senators could praise the accused during what would had been her time to question him.

Also this was never about if the offense would be prosecutable after so many years or ever. It was about his character, temperament to sit on the bench and fairly weigh information before him, and would he again lie willfully under oath to project an image of someone he was not. He lied, he showed he was partisan, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

[catbyte]

8. Says the Prosecutor with a 10% sex crime conviction rate.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Order a psychological evaluation

It's about temperament now as well

[CincyDem]

10. As much as they want to frame this as a trial, her point is immaterial.

This is the classic republican strategy of framing the decision space.

They would like for you to believe the decision is simple: is there enough information here for you to find Kav "guilty" of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, a phrase that draws the line through freedom...should he remain free or be incarcerated for his crimes. The language is designed to have people think about legal proceedings and irrefutable evidence.

The real framing is simple too but not on their side: Is there enough information here for you to find Kav "worthy" of a SCOTUS seat, a phrase that draw the line through privilege...has he earned the privilege of serving on the nation's highest court deciding its broadest and often most important cases. This recognizes that this is about our society and how we see the future.

These are two independent questions and the answer to both can be no. The can be technically "not guilty" and still "not worthy". That's what Republican's have brought us to, that we draw the line at the lowest bar versus the highest. That's what November has to start turning around.

I don't think any of know enough on the first question given the kangaroo session yesterday but I sure know my answer to the second. ( and the unasked third - should he even keep his appellate bench as yesterday's rant).

[LiberalFighter]

11. She doesn't have any experience in bringing charges in Arizona

when there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Well that settles it

If a Republican prosecutor doesn’t see fit to charge a fellow Republican with a sex crime said Republican is clearly fit for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

[riversedge]

13. There was no law enforcement or FBI investigation for her to say this. Shame on her.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Earned her money

[Roy Rolling]

15. Another Disgrace

Is she in line for AG or something? How much did she get paid? $130,000 for a half-day's work?

[JaneQPublic]

16. She was kicked out before the end of his testimony.

If her reasoning is some facts were not established, then maybe it was because she wasn't there to established the facts she deemed critical.

Lord knows no facts saw the light of day from the theatrics of Graham and the rest of the GOPers.

[turbinetree]

17. Lets see 11 right wing republican libertarian fascists make $174,00 a year divide that by 365

they make $476 per day, so they gave her $5236.00 dollars doing exactly what.................oh I know ripping off the taxpayers and doing the job of republican senators who didn't want to do there job with Dr. Ford, but were all hands on deck when the serial drunk accused of sexual assault, at least three times, and ranting that it was a left wing conspiracy out to get him and the democarts on the committee were trying to do a Borkian on him moment and it was the Clinton's fault....................do I have this correct.........................................

[neohippie]

18. About that July 1st party

Notice how she was no longer allowed to speak or ask questions after she mentioned that July 1st Party and how it lines up with Ford's testimony... Why didn't she bring back that map of houses and ask where Timmy's house was, or what Ski's referred to? Or ask Kavanaugh why the people Ford said were in attendance were also named on his calendar for that date?

Also why did nobody ever bring up the fact that there are emails that prove Kavanaugh has lied under oath previously and take the opportunity to question him about that while he was there on national television to show that the judge is a proven liar who has lied under oath multiple times?

This whole nomination process has been a charade from the beginning

[Raven123]

19. Thank you for addressing that

I didn’t see the hearing. Did any of the Dems? Bring it up. If not, a big mistake. It is corroborative evidence

[neohippie]

24. I didn't see the entire proceeding...

But I watched enough to see that it didn't appear to even be addressed, which had me thinking that somehow questions could only be asked pertaining to the Ford charges, because that should have been hammered phone and Kavanaugh should have been put on the hot seat and asked directly about it with emails showing that he lied entered into the record

[dalton99a]

20. +1

[riversedge]

23. Since even Dems do not have his missing documents, she was NOT prepped very good at all. Makes me

wonder what materials she did have and what she was able to go over given the short time she had to prepare.


but you raise good concerns.

[Denzil_DC]

21. To state the blindingly obvious, it wasn't a prosecution.

If it had been, much more time would have been allowed, more evidence would have been gathered, sifted and presented, cross-examinations would have taken place, etc. etc. And it probably wouldn't be up to the demographic mix of the committee to make a judgment.

Maybe Mitchell's confused about the proceedings and her role in them, maybe she's just a shill ...

[riversedge]

22. Grassley (R-Iowa) received three standing ovations from Republicans for how he conducted the hearin

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/senators-expect-judiciary-committee-will-hold-kavanaugh-vote-friday-850293?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f0fa-dd93-ad7f-f8ffe0400000&nlid=630318

................Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) received three standing ovations from Republicans for how he conducted the hearing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who skewered Democrats for what he called a “despicable” attempt to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination, also received applause from the GOP, said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

"There was an awful lot of exchange back and forth but it wasn't always positive,” Roberts said of the Republican gathering.

In addition to Manchin, Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota are viewed as potential votes for Kavanaugh. All are up for reelection in red states. Senators and aides expect that Donnelly, Manchin, Murkowski and Collins will all vote the same way, though which way that is remains unclear.

[Princess Turandot]

25. The constituents of whatever government entity employs her should demand her resignation..

or termination. What future abuse/assault victim would trust her?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. That government entity is the same one that employed Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

So....

[Princess Turandot]

33. Ah (and Ugh) nt

[Anon-C]

26. Loll!

[PubliusEnigma]

28. Meaningless, since it wasn't an actual legal proceeding. The real question is, did she believe him?

What does she think happened on July 1, 1982?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Of course not, because NO INVESTIGATION WAS DONE.

Prosecutors don'e file charges unless and until an allegation of a crime has been investigated. This one wasn't.

[Nitram]

31. Of course she wouldn't. No prosecutor could charge him based on one hearing.

First there has to be an FBI investigation and ALL potential witnesses need to be interviewed.

[JenniferJuniper]

32. Um, didn't they hire her to

tell them that?