Here's the sum total of the pushback from WaPo on Mitchell's report.pic.twitter.com/vUjwN5BtTB
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Here's the sum total of the pushback from WaPo on Mitchell's report.pic.twitter.com/vUjwN5BtTB
It's certainly doesn't meet legal standards of proof, either. I'm still questioning WHY she even wrote it.
She was paid to?
Fuckin' Occam's Razor. This report reminds me of Trump's personal doctor's letter. Trump and Kavanaugh -- the Raymond Shaws of this administration.
Why wasn’t she allowed to continue her questioning of Kavanaugh per the agreement? Was she going to ask him to explain the entries in his calendar and yearbook?
Would like to see the American Bar Association step in and address the absurdity of this report and question the rationale of its author.
Not just them, but the DC and MD bar owe it to themselves to stand for truthful inquiry, not partisan parrot trick. Kavannaugh didn’t need to lie to defend himself but he did. Once he did, this wasn’t just something 35 years ago, but now.
Not to point out the obvious, but it’s a job interview, not a criminal prosecution. Fine, don’t bring charges. Believe Dr. Ford or don’t (I do believe her). But Kavanaugh’s dissembling, lying, anger & partisanship should be disqualifying for THIS job.
She says no prosecutor would bring charges against Kav. But no reasonable prosecutor would make such a declaration absent a thorough investigation. She may have come across as reasonable - def compared to the Kav/Graham spectacles - but Mitchell is a more than willing kapo.
Not to mention that whether to bring criminal charges is NOT the standard here
Everything about her statement is disingenuous bad faith. Prosecutors prosecute sex cases when they have a victim's witness testimony. Even if they don't think they will win. Because they'd rather lose in court then be seen brushing aside serious allegations and angry victims.
She's pretending a prosecutor would think the same as a defense attorney and has the same incentives. In the real world, her DA boss wouldn't for a second allow a serious victim to be buried. Even if the evidence wasn't great.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Mitchell being asked to write up an analysis. The entire hearing is turning into a sham as is the FBI follow-up.
I get tired of screaming this into the void, but "ITS A JOB INTERVIEW!!!" Hardiman is likely to be equally terrible (ie great if you are a Repub), but he's also likely to not have sexually assaulted anyone. Why is this hard? It's not SC or jail for K.
And interviewed zero witnesses
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.