{"id":1291,"date":"2019-04-06T19:33:35","date_gmt":"2019-04-06T19:33:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.syyhoaxanalyzer.com\/?p=1291"},"modified":"2019-04-11T07:11:47","modified_gmt":"2019-04-11T00:11:47","slug":"did-the-wsj-report-that-a-sex-crimes-prosecutor-was-pulled-from-a-hearing-for-asking-too-many-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.syyhoaxanalyzer.com\/?p=1291","title":{"rendered":"Did the WSJ Report That a Sex Crimes Prosecutor Was Pulled from a Hearing for Asking Too Many Questions?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nDisinformation<\/a>
\nFact Checks<\/a>
\nPolitics<\/a><\/p>\n

Did the WSJ Report That a Sex Crimes Prosecutor Was Pulled from a Hearing for Asking Too Many Questions?<\/h1>\n

Beware of claims made without citations when Supreme Court confirmations are on the line.<\/h4>\n

<\/svg>” alt=”Brooke Binkowski” width=”40″ height=”40″ data-ezsrc=”https:\/\/dn.truthorfiction.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/15194243\/brooke-avatar-80×80.png” \/><\/a>
\nBrooke Binkowski<\/a>September 28, 2018
\nShare<\/a>
\nShare<\/a>
\nReddit<\/a>
\nWhatsApp<\/a>
\nEmail<\/a>
\nTweet<\/a>
\n


\n<\/svg>” alt=”Mobile phone on a table next to a mug full of coffee.” data-ezsrc=”https:\/\/dn.truthorfiction.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/28163354\/twitter-2617330_1920-820×394.jpg” \/>
\n<\/a><\/center>
\nMobile phone displaying Twitter icon on a table next to a mug filled with coffee. StockSnap \/ Pixabay<\/a><\/p>\n

Claim<\/h3>\n

According to the Wall Street Journal, a prosecutor was pulled from questioning Brett Kavanaugh because she was about to stumble on facts they were trying to obscure.<\/p>\n

Rating<\/h3>\n

Not True
\nShare<\/a>
\nShare<\/a>
\nReddit<\/a>
\nWhatsApp<\/a>
\nEmail<\/a>
\nTweet<\/a>
\nAdvertisement
\n <\/p>\n

Reporting<\/h3>\n

As the United States debated putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite multiple assault allegations<\/a>, rumors began to fly about a hearing the previous day, including a bombshell<\/a> that purportedly appeared in the Wall Street Journal<\/em>:<\/p>\n

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This tweet quickly traveled far and wide, but had no citation or direct quotes.
\nWhile it is true that Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona\u2019s Maricopa County, abruptly stopped after questioning Dr. Christine Blasey Ford<\/a>, a California professor who is among the women publicly accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault<\/a> \u00a0at a party in 1982 there is no story in the Wall Street Journal<\/em> \u00a0 as of this writing that backs up the assertion that it was because she was about to stumble on evidence that proved that Kavanaugh was lying.
\nIt is true that there has been speculation and analysis<\/a> around Mitchell\u2019s abrupt departure<\/a> from questioning Kavanaugh after Dr. Blasey Ford, but there has not been any definitive statement made about it \u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201d and not in the Wall Street Journal.<\/em>
\nAs the WSJ\u2019s editor-in-chief put it:<\/p>\n

\n

Please be leery of tweets purporting to pass on reporting from @WSJ<\/a> without actual links. For the real, authoritative deal follow @WSJ<\/a> and visit https:\/\/t.co\/u65TKrRzcq<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u201d Matt Murray (@murraymatt) September 28, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For that reason, we rate this claim Not True<\/strong>.
\nShare<\/a>
\nShare<\/a>
\nReddit<\/a>
\nWhatsApp<\/a>
\nEmail<\/a>
\nTweet<\/a>
\n<\/article>\n

Advertisement
\n 
\nTags:<\/p>\n