Prosecutor expertly dissects case against Kavanaugh
WASHINGTON » The decision to have sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell question Christine Blasey Ford may have been a brilliant — and possibly pivotal — choice.
No doubt, allowing Mitchell to ask questions instead of Republican senators avoided the spectacle of old, white men questioning an alleged victim of sexual assault. But Mitchell’s genial approach left supporters of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh frustrated, complaining that Mitchell was “not laying a glove” on Ford.
That view is wrong. First, the audience for Mitchell’s questions wasn’t the media or the public. It was the three Republican senators who will determine Judge Kavanaugh’s fate: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jeff Flake of Arizona. And it turns out that Mitchell’s orderly questioning actually elicited a lot of information that undermined Ford’s case against Kavanaugh. After the hearing, Mitchell delivered a summation, first during a closed- door meeting of Republican senators and then in a memorandum, in which she explains why, based on her experience prosecuting sex crimes, no “reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”
To begin with, Mitchell lays out how Ford had “not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened” or her age when it happened, and how “her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.” For example, Mitchell points out that Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to a Washington Post reporter, but “she did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.”
Ford has “no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account,” Mitchell writes. Ford doesn’t remember who invited her to the gathering, how she got there, or where that house was located. Mitchell writes, “She does not remember how she got fromthe party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.” Furthermore, Mitchell notes, Ford “testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, didn’t follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.” This seems highly unlikely.
And, Mitchell demonstrates more recent inconsistencies. Ford delayed the hearing because she said her symptoms prevented her fromflying from California to Washington, but then acknowledged under questioning that she flies to the East Coast “at least once a year to visit her family,” and has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia and Costa Rica for hobbies and vacations.
Mitchell also shows that “Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions” with the Post, which wrote that she provided “portions” of her therapist’s notes to a reporter. But in her testimony, Ford couldn’t recall if it was full or partial therapist notes or her own summary of them.
She couldn’t remember whether she took a polygraph the day of her grandmother’s funeral or the day after or whether she was videotaped or recorded during the polygraph. She didn’t explain how she knew to call her congresswoman’s office but not her senator, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Some say it’s unfair to pick apart her testimony, because victims of sexual assault often have trouble remembering key details. Fair enough. But if her memory is the only evidence against Kavanaugh, then inconsistencies matter. And without any corroboration, senators cannot rely her imperfect memories alone — no matter how sympathetic a witness she was.