Posted on 10/02/2018 10:16:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Washington post has reached a new level of parody during the Kavanaugh hearings. Everything is worth printing if it meets their end goal, which is to scuttle the guy.
Their latest is an article titled “Experts question GOP prosecutor’s memo on Christine Blasey Ford.”
There’s just one problem. Not a single person they cite actually has the expertise to rebut a career sex crimes prosecutor like Mitchell nor do they even try. It’s all just personal attacks.
“As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve come to no conclusion other than the conclusion that there needs to be more facts to come to a conclusion,” said Douglas Wigdor, an employment lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in sexual assault and harassment cases. Wigdor, a Republican, called the memo “a joke” and “preposterous.”
Nowhere in this guys background is experience in forensic analysis of sexual assault claims. He’s currently a civil employment lawyer. Translation: he sues people for sexual harassment and other work place grievances.
Let’s see who they quote next.
Linda Fairstein, a former sex-crimes prosecutor in Manhattan who is a Democrat, said that Mitchell seemed to misrepresent matters in referring twice to her “independent assessment” and once to her “independent review.”
“There is nothing independent about her opinion,” Fairstein said. “She is a hired gun giving an opinion for the side that hired her.”
A Democrat you say? Well, glad the Washington Post really went deep in the well here to find some non-biased “experts.” For being such an expert, she sure shares none of her actual expertise. How long was she a sex crimes prosecutor? At what level? Is she an expert in forensic interviewing like Mitchell? Does she have a single thing to offer as a factual rebuttal to Mitchell or are we just naming calling here?
Third times the charm though, right? This is the final person they went to for comment as an “expert.”
Tasha Menacker, chief strategy officer for the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, said she has heard survivors talking in recent days about how their experiences match the experience described by Ford, including an inability to pinpoint when their assault occurred or other such details.
“I’m afraid that survivors in Maricopa County are going to see this and relate to Dr. Ford, and be concerned about whether or not they would be believed,” she said. “Survivors are going to see this and say, ‘I wouldn’t be able to be consistent in my recollections either, remember specific dates either.’ ”
While I’m sure Ms. Menacker is a perfectly fine woman doing perfectly fine work at her awareness group, she is in no way an expert on judging the forensic analysis of sexual assault allegations. She’s also obviously biased in her view toward those accused given her position.
There you have it. The Washington Post needed to put out something rebutting Mrs. Mitchell. Being short on actual “experts,” they ran to an…employment lawyer, a Democrat partisan, and someone who’s not even in the field of law.
Journalism. Makes sense.
Here’s the bigger point. Notice what this article doesn’t do. It makes zero attempt to actually confront or challenge the very real, very undeniable facts that Mrs. Mitchell laid out. The Post decided to instead attack her surface level credibility with no underlying evidence to do so.
As I’ve said many times, our media is a dumpster fire. Anyone that was holding out on calling these people the enemy (in a political sense at least) probably should reevaluate that position. It’s time to call a spade a spade.
Mitchell did an excellent job demonstrating that Ford’s story is changing for strategic reasons.
As she testified several times, Ford is trying to be “helpful.”
Here is an excellent analysis by Margot Cleveland: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1046408449918218240.html
What the leftist are saying is she is a “paid mouthpiece” for the “good ol’ boys network.” I kid you not.
Even when it’s pointed out that she has over 25 years experience with sex crimes. It’s maddening.
I can’t think of a more inoffensive person than that prosecutor which just shows the left will attempt to destroy almost anyone. No one is safe which is why they must be defeated.
Employment Lawyears are prosecutors? Who knew?
I reached all the same conclusions as Ms. Mitchell while watching the hearing. It’s listening and common sense, and then picking up on all the inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony. Lots of others did as well — I read the comments here, for example. It’s not rocket science and it doesn’t take an “expert” to see it.
“Survivors are going to see this and say, ‘I wouldn’t be able to be consistent in my recollections either, remember specific dates either.’ ”
If that’s the case then they have no business bringing accusations against potentially innocent men.
Of course Stalinists have never cared about such things. An accusation against a conservative white male by a progressive woman requires no proof or corroboration.
The one of that three that actually has sex crimes prosecutor experience did not actually refute her on any of her claims, just complained that she called herself “independent”.
Being short on actual “experts,” they ran to an…employment lawyer, a Democrat partisan, and someone who’s not even in the field of law... It makes zero attempt to actually confront or challenge the very real, very undeniable facts that Mrs. Mitchell laid out. The Post decided to instead attack her surface level credibility with no underlying evidence to do so.
Believe all women, or something like that.
You could not expect anything better from the Washington Post. It is one of the worst newspapers in the country for truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.