Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 9:02:48 AM

She is quoted as saying that not only would she not have prosecuted this case, she could not even get a search warrant.  Despite my occasional puzzlement of what she was trying to do with some of her questions she established one compelling outcome.....there is zero evidence, xero corroboaration and complete rebuttal by those that were claimed to have been there.  

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 10:17:13 AM

I believe it was pointed out in the hearing yesterday that there is no statute of limitations for attempted rape in the state of Maryland.  If Dr. Ford, after her academy award performance (with coaching from four pro-bono lawyers), still feels she is traumatized and can only carry on her life if Kavanaugh and his family burn in hell, then why not report this dastardly deed to the police?  Mitchell's conclusion answers that question.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 10:32:58 AM

Watched the whole thing yesterday and I don't know why the media (and liberals) are so compelled to beliveve the woman.  I felt that all those calls by the Committee for Kavanaugh to ask the WH for an FBI investigation were patently ridiculous and designed to make Kavanaugh look bad when he wouldn't do it. As was pointed out yesterday, there is no satute of limitations on his "crime", so why didn't she just file criminal charges?  "civic duty" my a$$.

Name:	Moldyoldy -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 10:50:25 AM

I agree, t. I believe schumer and feinstein took advantage of an emotionally unbalanced person who is a democrat activist and who had convinced herself she could support the cause if she "remembered" that it was kavanaugh who attacked her 30 years ago. I even think the democrats doped ford up. Look at her eyes and facial tone during her testimony. It looks like she was loaded with tranauilizers. The democrats have reached a new low in their disregard for humanity with their abuse of ford.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 11:14:45 AM

I really liked how Cruz handled that one with his questions of Grassley.  Had Feinsten not withheld the information, had she shared it in private with the committee so they could investigaste it over 2 months ago when there was time there would have been no need to the last minute FBI investigation.  And they could have done so without forcing Ford to have to go through this testimony.  They didn;t because any reasonable person would conclude that her story not only lacked a shred of corroboration, it was openly and clearly refuted by the others she claims were there.  This was yet another delay tactic and was so transparent.  And people keep saying he refused the FBI investigation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  He told the committee he would do whatever they wanted.  It's their job to order this, not his, and if they really wanted one they have had over 2 months to ask for one.

But more to the point, all the FBI will do is ask questions and provide the results to the committee.  The very same questions Democrats could have asked BK yesterday.  And we have the sworn testimony of the other three people that were supposedly there, all of whom deny it.  Their only reason for getting Judge in front of them is so they can try to destroy a man who suffered from alcoholism and is a cancer survivor.  Their fixation on the yearbook was so retarded it's almost beyond belief.  What matters more, some sophomoric nonsense in a yearbook about drinking beer and farting or all the evidence of his life during high school and since then?  Someone as evil as he was being depicted is in no way going to alter their behavior all of the sudden, if at all.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Rachel Mitchell's conclusion
Date:	9/28/2018 12:03:42 PM

Because the majority member told them no to the FBI so they wanted Kavanaugh to go around him and demand one which is a bucket of chit anyway.  

All I can say is I hope when/if the repukes are out of the majority that they stick it to them demonrats by their new set standards from now own.  They will literally have to find saints for any and all offices, all congressional members who have a sexual anything in their background other then signed and noterized sexual consent form per encounter ( including married couples ) because a marriage certificate does not mean she lost her right to say no.