Posted on 09/30/2018 8:54:49 PM PDT by bitt
After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoZEI_mU0AIP5wG.jpg
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
And Mitchell’s report is one of the witnesses statements that the FBI should and hopefully will consider.
Assuming that she ever gave class lectures. Do we have any proof she ever did, or was that just part of her 'cia cover' ?
Both statements can be true.
By letting the FBI go forward they can milk this out as long as they want regardless of any time lines congress set.
Here’s the complete NINE page pdf of Rachel Mitchell’s analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations. Linked from Mark Levin’s twitter feed.
Clean and much easier to read.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf
BTTT for later.
Why do the glasses not 'fit' her head. I have tried on many pair of reading glasses and don't buy the ones that are too WIDE for the space between my eyes. Couldn't she afford to go to any eye doctor ? Or at least get someone who could 'see' to tell her they didn't fit.
Are you thinking with your brain or feeling with your emotions?
MeTOO, but then I think it important to at least give consideration to every possibility, otherwise one might miss the truth.
Thanks for giving an appropriate response.
I agree. It is a profile shot of her taking the polygraph, but it looks nothing like Ford.
Two different issues. One is a supplemental background investigation. The other is a criminal investigation.
“Here’s the complete NINE page pdf of Rachel Mitchell’s analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations. Linked from Mark Levin’s twitter feed.
Clean and much easier to read.”
—
Linked to it about 4-5 posts above yours. I agree it’s easier to read than scattered bits on Twitter. Timeline is helpful, too.
Actually, it's more accurate to say that even if she had released them to the WaPo, she probably wouldn't be able to remember if it was the full transcript of the session, or just the therapist's notes, or if it was a summary she had made of the notes. She may even forget that there were any notes. That's about how bad her memory is, short-term, and long-term.
I was an IT guy and got tired of forgetting my reading glasses all the time when I went to offices to troubleshoot computer problems. I decided to check into glasses with progressive lens. If I was a cube worker, I probably could have gone the swap route for several more years.
You are wrong; Rachel did a superb job exposing the false statements by Blasey Ford. Her methodology was flawless! Had she approached the questioning in a confrontational fashion, the media could nullify what she exposed with whines of ‘bullying the witness’.
Christine Blasey Ford is CIA, she runs the undergrad recruitment for CIA at Stanford.....her father knew the originator of MK ULTRA PROGRAM at Stanford, her performance was the product of PSY OP training....
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-23/exposed-cia-honeytrap-set-kavanaugh-accuser-cia-ties
I know what picture you are talking about. If it was given to the senate committee by the polygraph person, the whole thing falls apart.
I know her grandmother was sick, but she had plenty of time to write that letter. I'm wondering now if she may have scribbled the letter out quickly after her first meeting with Eschoo, left the hand-written statement with Eshoo's office, and then through phone calls with Eschoo's office during those 10 days, they helped her make corrections to the final version before it was typed up. She had to have signed it, so did they fax it to her, or mail it to her to sign? I don't recall reading that the original letter that left Eschoo's office and made it to Feinstein's, has ever been seen. Was the letter Feinstein's office sent to the FBI the original, or a copy? There's so many scenarios for the story. It just seems strange that Ford, who called Eshoo's office, called The WaPo tip line, spoke to her friends, seemed pretty desperate and in a rush to get her story out. I find it strange that it took 10 days before a final copy was sent from Eshoo's office to Feinstein's.
Here’s a direct link to the whole document, including a significant timeline with links at the end.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf
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.