The report is in.
Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh during last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, has concluded that not only is the evidence insufficient to justify criminal charges of sexual assault, it doesn’t even rise to the much lower level needed to bring a civil suit.
This is a stunning rebuke of Dr. Ford and the allegations she has made that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36-years ago.
The rebuke of Dr. Ford is even more stunning considering Mitchell is an award-winning sexual assault prosecutor and chief of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona.
She’s been lauded by former Democratic Governor and Obama cabinet official, Janet Napolitano, for her strong advocacy on behalf of sexual assault victims.
From calling for stronger laws against sexual assault and for changes in the courtroom to make them more comfortable for victims, one couldn’t ask for a prosecutor more sensitive to victims.
With all those accolades and with the entire media and Democratic Party screaming that Dr. Ford must be “believed” because she’s a woman, it’s no wonder Mitchell conducted a velvet-glove, hands-off examination of Dr. Ford.
In any event, Mitchell did have several segments during which she chose not to ask basic questions designed to test the credibility of Dr. Ford. Notably, Mitchell did not examine Dr. Ford as to her bias, prejudice, or other motive that might affect her testimony.
How about these simple questions?
Dr. Ford, isn’t it true that you’re a registered Democrat? Isn’t it true that you’ve regularly donated to Democratic political candidates and the Democratic Party?
Isn’t it true that you donated to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign? Isn’t it true that you’ve attended a “Women’s March” in which the speakers spoke out against President Trump?
Isn’t it true that you’ve donned the “p***y hat” at those marches?
Isn’t it true that you’ve signed letters denouncing President Trump’s policies as “inhumane”?
The answers to all those questions are “yes” and they’re easily proven. But they weren’t asked.
Clearly, Mitchell was pulling her punches to appear “fair” to the victim. Remember, female victims must be “believed.”
Yet even though Mitchell was fighting with one hand tied behind her back and the other in a powderpuff glove, she managed to land some blows.
Mitchell also did a nice job exposing Dr. Ford’s claim that the alleged sexual assault prevents her from flying.
Dr. Ford maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that these disorders were either “caused” or “contributed to” by the alleged sexual assault.
Mitchell explains that “the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. Yet during her testimony Ford agreed that she flies ‘fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.’ She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.”
Notably, many point out the flaw in Dr. Ford’s case is that she had no witnesses to corroborate her account. However, a victim does not need corroborating witnesses. Many valid convictions occur after a “he said-she said” trial in which there is no corroborating evidence.
It appears Dr. Ford, like many activist Democrats, is willing to do whatever it takes to derail the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and to destroy the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
PennLive Opinion contributor Marc A. Scaringi is an attorney and radio host. His work appears biweekly.