In short, she blows Dr. Ford out of the water, says she doesn't even meet the preponderance of evidence standard:
"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. 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 preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."
https://www.neonrevolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf
"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. 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 preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."
https://www.neonrevolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf