Return to Blog #9: Mitchell’s report clearing Kavanaugh is worse than a joke
- How did we get to this point in the discussion?
- Blog # 9
- Ms. Mitchell’s reached two conclusions, each indefensible!
- Her report focused on an irrelevant evidence standard to make Kavanaugh’s defense look stronger
- Mitchell’s report was deceptive from the outset regarding the evidence standard she used
- Her report was intended to support the Republican con job on the public
- She supported the con job’s two components and then went the extra mile
- Rachel Mitchell’s report ignored the most relevant evidence
- The evidence Ms. Mitchell consciously ignored
- She even failed to follow the evidence during her questioning of Kavanaugh
- Mitchell failed to ask obvious followup questions about the July 1, 1982, house-party
- The evidence that Ms. Mitchell considered
- Ms. Mitchell’s report was dishonest from the outset concerning the evidence
- She fixed the outcome of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt analysis
- She also attempted to fix the outcome of her more-likely-than-not analysis
- Using the criminal evidence standard helped make Mitchell’s efforts to attack Dr. Ford’s credibility appear to be less unreasonable
- Various prosecutors published severely critical analyses of Ms. Mitchell’s report
- Ms. Mitchell’s report is far worse than is captured by the prosecutors’ critiques
- Key takeaways from the prosecutors’ critiques of Rachel Mitchell’s Report
- Analysis of Rachel Mitchell’s report – based on the evidence she considered in her report
- Ms. Mitchell made three categories of arguments
- Another prosecutor’s analysis confirms the weakness of her second category of arguments
- Ms. Mitchell’s assertion that Dr. Ford’s accusation is weaker than a he-said, she-said case
- Ms. Mitchell’s assertion was irrelevant but served as a tool to support the Republican con job
- Ms. Mitchell’s assertion was dishonest, even before considering the corroboration of Dr. Ford’s account.
- Analysis of Rachel Mitchell’s report – based on the relevant evidence
- Ms. Mitchell should have accounted for the following considerations
- Ms. Mitchell’s arguments in defense of Kavanaugh fall into several categories
- All of Ms. Mitchell’s arguments are irrelevant given the proof Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982
- Here is what Ms. Mitchell should have concluded about Kavanaugh’s guilt
- What were the Republicans looking for from Ms. Mitchell’s report, and what did she think her job was?
- For Ms. Mitchell, her report was “Mission accomplished!”
- Some journalists gave the Republicans exactly what they were looking for from Mitchell’s report
- There were more insightful views of Ms. Mitchell’s report expressed on Twitter, but
- The Democrats response to Mitchell’s report was technically impeccable but didn’t get coverage
- Ms. Mitchell’s report is so flawed that no Republican senator or media observer should have missed it
- No competent observer could have honestly missed three observations
- No competent observer could have believed Mitchell’s report was anything but a joke
- The Republicans in the Senate, the Trump Administration, and the media consciously revictimized an actual victim of sexual assault
- The collective lack of morality is stunning and damning!
- Perhaps Rachel Mitchell has unintentionally done some good
- Looking forward
Blog #9 Appendix – Articles Critiquing Rachel Mitchell Report
OPIFACTION 