Courts

Republican 'Female Assistant' Explains How She Would Have Silenced Christine Blasey Ford

Sex-crimes prosecutor prosecutes sex-crimes victim while ignoring potential sex criminal.

By  
on

Rachel Mitchell (Photo By Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images)

During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in Rachel Mitchell, a sex-crimes prosecutor from Arizona, to question both witnesses. Well, she was supposed to question both witnesses. In reality, she questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the alleged survivor. When it came time to question the potential sex criminal, Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate Republicans pulled the mic back so Lindsey Graham could threaten political retribution if he ever becomes Senate Judiciary Chairman.

Mitchell’s performance was bad. In a hearing about Brett Kavanaugh’s fitness for the Supreme Court, Mitchell decided, or was instructed to, put Christine Blasey Ford on trial. Her questions for Ford were standard cross-examination procedures, including a deep dive into Ford’s fear of flying in an attempt, I guess, to impeach Ford’s testimony on other matters.

Once you sign up for a hatchet job, you have to hack your way through until they cut you a check. Mitchell prepared a five-page report for the Senate Judiciary Committee that was leaked to the press over the weekend. It’s a collection of Republican talking points, lies, and slander.

The top line takeaway is that Mitchell does not believe that a prosecutor would bring a case against Kavanaugh based on Dr. Ford’s testimony. To be clear: this is a self-evident, yet misleading and stupid conclusion. Everybody knows, or should know, that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case against Kavanaugh based on only Dr. Ford’s Senate Judiciary testimony. That’s not the standard. The standard is not: “You can be on the Supreme Court unless a prosecutor would bring a case against you for sexual assault you allegedly committed 36 years ago based on a victim’s statement.”

The standard might be: would a prosecutor conduct an investigation based on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sworn testimony? Would a prosecutor, question the alleged assailant, Brett Kavanaugh, and the other person alleged to be a witness to the assault, Mark Judge? Would a prosecutor question the victim’s therapist, who was told about the attack six years ago? Would a prosecutor ask the victim to take a polygraph, and would that polygraph provide a further impetus to investigate the victim’s claims?

Mitchell did none of these things after hearing Ford’s testimony. Instead she wrote a five-page letter, ostensibly got her check, and will now slink back to Arizona where she can dissuade other sexual assault victims from coming forward unless they can produce body-cam footage of their attackers assaulting them.

Sponsored

Mitchell’s unwillingness to take Dr. Ford seriously is part of the silencing of sexual assault victims, and its something the legal community should remember long after Judge Duffman ascends to the Supreme Court. Remember, Mitchell is a sex-crimes prosecutor. If you have been a victim of sexual assault, Mitchell is one of the people you are supposed to go to in your quest for justice. That is her literal job.

And yet, in five-pages, Mitchell makes one of the more compelling cases for why victims should not come forward. She explains, perhaps unintentionally, why the system is so broken that it cannot even be bothered to take most sexual assault victims seriously.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is one of the more credible sexual assault victims you’ll ever see: she’s a married, professional white woman with no ulterior reason for coming forward. She named her attacker to her husband and therapist, and described him to friends over the course of years. She has a clear and consistent memory of the attack that has not changed over the years she told the story, and did not change under intense questioning. AND she is in the unique position of being able to put a third person in the room as a witness to the type of attack that usually involves only two people.

Dr. Ford is the freaking GOLD STANDARD of victims. As Anne Helen Petersen has explained on BuzzFeed, most victims and survivors cannot hope to be believed as readily as Dr. Ford.

And yet… sex-crimes prosecutor Mitchell, an agent of the state who is supposed to catch and jail sexual assailants, is so unsatisfied that she claims she wouldn’t bother to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations further. Because she can’t remember the exact date of the assault. Because the alleged perpetrator’s friends say it didn’t happen. Because the victim’s friend says she BELIEVES HER, but can’t herself recall the party where the attack allegedly occurred. Because a 15-year-old girl didn’t tell her parents that a boy tried to rape her at a party that she wasn’t supposed to be at. Because the victim remembers everything about the house she went to once, expect for its street address.

Sponsored

People are acting like Mitchell is a mere pawn of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is certainly that. But she is also the living embodiment of how the justice system silences victims of sexual assault. She showed everybody how accusers are put on trial, while the accused can hide behind a shield of categorical denials.

Rachel Mitchell showed everybody what’s wrong with the justice system. Brett Kavanaugh just hopes to be the latest beneficiary.

Read prosecutor Rachel Mitchell’s memo about the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing [Axios]

Topics

, , ,