;;;Rachel Mitchell Memorandum and Analysis of Christine Blasey-Ford Testimony…'''

Within the memorandum Mitchell notes many inconsistencies with the testimony and points out the multiple conflicts within the story story were likely an outcome of coaching by her attorneys.

Multiple Democrat lawmakers and staff interacted with Ford prior to her testimony; and much of her testimony appears to have been shaped in an effort to justify inconsistencies.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/01/rachel-mitchell-memorandum-and-analysis-of-christine-blasey-ford-testimony/

Link to Rachel Mitchell Memorandum and Analysis Document:

http://wordpress.redirectingat.com/?id=725X1342&site=theconservativetreehouse.wordpress.com&xs=1&isjs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F389884130&xguid=61f0447e06816e595a8e9d83461de35f&xuuid=0cc03dd564d88be757d29717e8eb80fa&xsessid=2531358efb62ac047b83ed7f00bf9274&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2018%2F10%2F01%2Frachel-mitchell-memorandum-and-analysis-of-christine-blasey-ford-testimony%2F&pref=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F&xtz=240&jv=13.10.5&bv=2.5.1

>>3284118

Rachel Mitchell Memorandum and Analysis of Christine Blasey-Ford Testimony…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/01/rachel-mitchell-memorandum-and-analysis-of-christine-blasey-ford-testimony/

>>3284167

Here's Mitchell's analysis:

>>3284142

>>3284222

no person in history has lived up to his name.

>>3284222

>no person in history has lived up to his name.

try again

no person in history has lived up to his name as well as Jeff Flake, Senator from Arizona.

>>3284351

how would POTUS know that?

and why say it to the hyenas?

>>3284142

But this case is even weaker than that.

TO: All Republican Senators

FROM: Rachel Mitchell, Nominations Investigative Counsel United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

DATE: September 30, 2018

RE: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

https://www.scribd.com/document/389884130/Rachel-Mitchell-Memorandum-and-Analysis?ad_group=725X700959Xc54ff70ee46291b15e956db9d5814376&campaign=SkimbitLtd&keyword=660149026&medium=affiliate&source=hp_affiliate