Prosecutor who questioned Ford, shreds her case against Kavanaugh in memo


I for one, dismissed the Prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, out of hand regarding her questioning of Ford. It appeared Mitchell wandered to no point but I missed it entirely. Looking back, that is what prosecutors do. Lead them on then slam the door. I was not alone. Many thought she acted as if it were a deposition. Nope. Do read the whole thing over at the Daily Wire. I am dismayed that this isn’t getting the attention it so richly deserves. The party line is that we are sure something happened to her, it just wasn’t Kavanaugh. Read this.. it won’t disappoint. Two posts today, earlier catch Mustang’s post: Do You want to live forever?


Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell’s memo notes nine significant problems with Ford’s testimony and underscores that her case is “even weaker” than a “he said, she said” case.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Mitchell states. “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 prosecutor.

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened,

She lays bare why she thinks so.

The following 8 points are even more devastating.

Read the whole thing here at the  Daily Wire

Do You want to live forever?


Post by Mustang

What’s your thought?

I enjoy the United Kingdom.  My wife is British, and I have not met anyone here who I regard as curiously strange —even though I know they exist.  That said, I think the political structure here is about three bubbles off plumb.  For the Daily Mail on 26 September 2018, writer Steve Doughty warned the Brits, “We’re not living longer anymore.”

Doughty wrote, “The lifespans of men and women in the UK have stopped getting longer —halting a century of improvements, official evidence showed yesterday.”  What then follows is a regurgitation of demographic data compiled since 2015 and in an inset, “how other nations do better” in terms of life expectancy.

Naturally, there are two sides to this issue: British communists think that people are not living longer because of government cuts to social services; conservatives point to a return of diseases which were thought to be conquered —perhaps a more rational approach.  Side note: not living longer doesn’t necessarily suggest living fewer numbers of years.  And then there was the argument about life-style choices … as if any investigation since 2015 could be a significant indicator.  Finally, Doughty reported people living in Scotland and Wales are living 0.1 years less than those in England.  Gasp!

The bottom line here?  People in the UK live an average of 79.2 years.  In the USA, the average life expectancy (for men and women) is 78.8 years.  Is this at all significant?

As one of the world’s elderly, I don’t think that a difference in six months merits a full page spread in any newspaper —no, not even in HuffPo.  What younger people (in this case, the writer and the so-called medical and social services experts) fail to consider is quality of life—which, in my view, is more important than longevity.

Who wants to be an older person in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter) and be subjected to forced incarceration within elder-care facilities that implement programs that, among other things, reduce daily nutritional intake so that one is literally starved to death —thus saving government the money paid out in pensions, social security, or medical benefits?

Hint: not me.

How strange western society has become.  Do we actually imagine that living longer is necessarily a good thing?  I think not … especially considering the indignities that we heap upon our elder generations.  Does anyone think that having to wear protective undergarments is a geriatric perk, or having to take medications several times a day, or having to rely on someone else to help us find our way to the toilet … or take a bath, or wash our hair, or cut our toe-nails?

In our quest for increased life expectancy we may have forgotten the most important thing: human dignity.

It is my opinion that here in the UK, such articles are designed to cause older people to worry about their golden years.  What is happening here is strangely similar to strategies used by progressive Americans, who continually remind the elderly during election years that the opposite party wants to cut off their social security benefits.

We have arrived at a strange place in our development as human beings.  We have created a people today who actually think that they are entitled to live forever, or that they have a constitutional right to expect others to pay their medical bills —even when for the past 60 years they’ve smoked two packs of cigarettes every day.

It is an undeniable fact that people die and there is very little any of us can do about it.  We can’t promise eternal life, no matter how well communist governments work, so I think we ought to stop trying to scare the hell out of people who have reached an age where they are easily frightened.  Hell, maybe if the government and medical associations refrained from causing older people stress, they’d live longer.

%d bloggers like this: