It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: xuenchen
hilary , is that you ?????????????????????
what diference it makes is :
the article leads with the claim that ms mitchell is a " none partisan 3rd party " - thats a lie
and it does not bode well for the rest of the article
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: xuenchen
the article leads with the claim that ms mitchell is a " none partisan 3rd party " - thats a lie
Mitchell has worked as a prosecutor since 1993, according to Grassley’s statement. She is the deputy county attorney for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and chief of the Special Victims Division
Prior to heading the Special Victims Division, Mitchell ran the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office sex-crimes bureau, which is responsible for prosecuting sex-related felonies, such as adult sexual assault, child molestation and child prostitution offenses. Mitchell supervised the bureau for 12 years, according to Grassley.
Mitchell is a registered Republican, according to the Washington Post. The Post reports Mitchell previously donated to the campaign of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who is a Republican.
questioned the credibility of her accusations and called the case "weak" in her assessment of 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,"
Mitchell's report says that Democrats and Ford's own attorneys were "likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Vasa Croe
where have i attacked ms mitchell ?????????????
please stop fantasising
she is NOT " non partisan " - get over it
thats all i said
Like most professions, lawyers have codes of professional responsibility under which they operate. In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford’s counsel may well have violated them.
Kevin McCullough
✔
@KMCRadio
BREAKING: Multiple sources now telling me 3 additional investigations are about to open:
1. @FBI - felony lying to Congress by accusers making false claims.
2. Congress - @SenFeinstein’s handling of Ford letter.
3. DC Bar - into Ford’s attorneys malpractice.#payback
4:02 PM - Sep 30, 2018
It has been widely reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to send investigators to California to speak with Ford. Ford did not accept this offer. In addition, Ford reportedly was unable to attend a hearing set for Sept. 24 because she is afraid of flying and could not otherwise get to Washington by that date. The committee agreed to delay its hearing to Sept. 27.
Yet in her testimony, Ford stated it was not clear to her that the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) had offered to take her statements and testimony in California to prevent her from having to fly. Ford testified she would have accepted the offer had she known about it.
Indeed, she testified to Chairman Chuck Grassley, “If you were gonna come out to see me I would have happily hosted you and would have been happy to speak to you out there. It wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.” Ford also testified, “I was hoping that they would come to me [in California] but I realized that was an unrealistic request.” Not only was it not unrealistic, the offer was on the table.
Here I’ll assume Ford testified truthfully that she was not clear about the Judiciary Committee’s offer. (The alternative raises its own issues.) If Ford’s attorneys did not inform her clearly of the SJC’s offer, the Judiciary Committee could file a grievance against Ford’s attorneys, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, with the DC Bar. It would be even worse if they withheld this information from Ford because they were interested in a delay of the hearing for reasons other than their client’s interests.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
she is NOT " non partisan " - get over it
thats all i said
If Ms Mitchell (an outside prosecutor from Arizona) is ''none partisan'' because she voted Republican..
then what does that say about Mueller's entire team of ''Democrats''?
I thought they were ok, because they were fair minded and non partisan..
the article leads with the claim that ms mitchell is a " none partisan 3rd party " - thats a lie
and it does not bode well for the rest of the article
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Christine Blasey Ford’s claims have now been shut down. In front of our eyes Ford has turned into a Edsel. Just another ugly overhyped thing that didn’t live up to it’s expectations .
originally posted by: jrod
So most of you believe this show is a conspiracy from the left to destroy an innocent man(Kavanought) so he will not be appointed?
Asking for a friend.