As the United States debated putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite multiple assault allegations, rumors began to fly about a hearing the previous day, including a bombshell that purportedly appeared in the Wall Street Journal:
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..
This tweet quickly traveled far and wide, but had no citation or direct quotes.
While it is true that Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona’s Maricopa County, abruptly stopped after questioning Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor who is among the women publicly accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party in 1982 there is no story in the Wall Street Journal 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.
It is true that there has been speculation and analysis around Mitchell’s abrupt departure from questioning Kavanaugh after Dr. Blasey Ford, but there has not been any definitive statement made about it — and not in the Wall Street Journal.
As the WSJ’s editor-in-chief put it:
— Matt Murray (@murraymatt) September 28, 2018
For that reason, we rate this claim Not True.