Rachel Mitchell, the Creampuff Prosecutor

American Thinker ^ | 09/29/2017 | Jay Michaels

[SeekAndFind]

Maybe the optics required a female special counsel. But wasn't it possible to find someone who understands that the job of a prosecutor is to undermine the credibility of any witness testifying against the victim he's supposed to be representing?

In the case of the alleged event sketchily recalled by Christine Ford, this shouldn't have been difficult.

Any good attorney does not stick to scripted questions and takes advantages of openings provided by witnesses. This is something Rachel "Creampuff" Mitchell failed to do.

The special counsel needed to use all her time to question Ford about five things:

1. How well she knew Brett Kavanaugh

2. The alleged assault

3. The process by which she recovered the memory

4. The impact on her life

5. Why she chose to come forward when she did and what her expectations were

It's fine to lob a softball or two at the start; you want the witness to feel comfortable and trusting. But then you bear down and turn up the heat.

Instead, we got repeated questions about irrelevancies such as where the polygraph test took place; who ordered and paid for it; who was paying for Ford's lawyers; and the dates of various communications with Anna Eshoo, Dianne Feinstein, the lawyers, and the Washington Post.

Here are some things Creampuff should have asked:

1. How well did Ford know Kavanaugh?

This is crucial, given that Ford's best friend, Leland Keyser, told the committee that she "does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present." All the other individuals supposedly at the gathering also deny being there. The obvious question is, did Ford, if she was really assaulted, misidentify the perpetrator?

[Okeydoker]

You are right. She was hired as Committee Counsel, not Committee Prosecutor. Her job was not to be an advocate but to find the truth.

Unfortunately the procedure she had to live with doesnt allow enough uninterrupted time to properly examine a witness. Good idea, poorly planned by grassley.

[ncfool]

Mitchell was referred by a staffer of Feinstein.

[mountn man]

This was a confirmation hearing, not a criminal case.

Though I want the TRUTH out there
and justice to be served.
Walking in like Al Capone with a bat ain't going to work.

There is an election in 5-1/2 weeks.
Many dem voters are waking up to what is happening and walking away.

The dems have 26 Senate seats to protect, the reps just 9.

If the dems lose only 2-3 seats out of 26, they have to pick up 4-5 from reps. That means they have to poach half the rep seats.

Unlikely (except for voter fraud)

If the both sides lose 1/4 of their seats, 6 for them dems, 2 for the reps, that's a 4 seat pickup for the reps.

Win or lose Arizona, Jeff Flake is still gone.
(hey so is McCain. )

[dadfly]

sigh.

the attorney the gope wing of the uni-party “ruling class/central planning/free-trading/money for nothing/cheap labor/pseudo scientific technocratic” elites chose reflects very precisely the public face they want to project to their ideal gop voter, and to a slightly lesser extent their perceived notion of a worldly wise moderate voter.

she did exactly what they wanted her to do and nothing more.

[The people have spoken]

She was semi-effective in showing that Ford lied about her fear of flying.

[grania]

She said she didn’t know Kavanaugh, just who he was because of mutual friends. I thought the prosecutor asking the questions was the best of a bad situation. The dems wanted a situation where they could accuse the Republicans on the committee of bullying a victim. They didn’t get it.

[ladyjane]

At first I agreed with many sentiments expressed here. At this point I think there was NO WAY the Republicans could aggressively question her or accuse her of lying. The push back would have been enormous.

The plan was never to cross-examine her in the traditional sense. The plan was to be super nice to her and ask her a lot of fact based questions. Anybody who was listening heard one lie after another. The questions they zeroed in on told the opposing lawyers how much they already know. At one point they seemed to have some house floor plans. That made the other lawyers very nervous. I bet they have figured by now out how much info/dirt they have on their patsy and and it’s going to make the FBI interview very difficult.

Our side already knows everything. Our side already has the evidence. But they can’t at this point bring it out. If we had an FBI with integrity we’d be home free. We don’t have a senate with integrity and we don’t have a FBI with integrity.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Re “missed opportunities.” Where are her parents and siblings (if she has any) in all this. Apparently Dad made a nondescript comment. The fact that they are not in there supporting their daughter gives me suspicion she is a crazy loon and they are estranged.

Then there is the perjury of her introducing herself as a psychologist. Anybody in any profession knows the precise and exacting requirements to earn a title. For example, I’m a mechanical engineer, but I never took the rigorous steps to earn my Professional Engineering license. Even today, 45 years after earning my BS, I can tell you that you need to earn the “Engineer in Training” designation and then pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam. Only at that point can you proudly call yourself a “Professional Engineer.”

In my opinion, there is something is really wrong with Ford.

Mitchell also had to contend with the Dems interrupted her every few minutes and intentionally blocking the pursuit of any potentially threatening line of questioning.

[stevem]

What is her record? I s'pect they didn't hire her because she lost every case she ever tried.

The real defense came from Kavanaugh.

The offense was mounted by Graham and Mitchell. Whoda thunk it?

[Covenantor]

Ms. Mitchell task was to perform the complainant interview as though it had been brought to her in her role as a DA or ADA to ascertain if there was probable cause to file charges after the detectives had taken the complaint in what would have the initial police interview...using CBF’s statements. Such interviews need to conducted in neutral fashion to elicit comfortable responses. She did that.

And then reported to the GOP Chair, “There's no efffff’n case to warrant pursuing further.” ...but more politely.

Big nothing burger. Same as the confused idiots that wander in and confess to the latest murder printed in the papers.

She let CBF reveal her inconsistencies without badgering...a very effective interrogation. The situation was not an episode of Perry Mason or Special Victims TV drama, though the dems hoped for that.

[rwa265]

Ms. Mitchell job was to do exactly what the Republican members of the Committee hired her to do. Nothing more, nothing less. And I would guess that that is exactly what she did.

[miserare]

She was a terrible disappointment. They should have called in Judge Jeanine Piro, who has 100 times more experience prosecuting sex crimes...and calling out liars!

[BruinX66]

Mitchell was doing fine until Grassley interrupted her 5 mins in. She was handcuffed the whole hearing and had a short amount of time to even do questioning.

She did point out multiple holes in Ford’s testimony, and exposed the plane flying lies.

[RoosterRedux]

The GOP old white men had a fine line to walk.

They needed to find weaknesses in Ford's claims but not fire up women on the left and not drive away women on the Center and Right.

They needed a woman to do it for them.

Mitchell found every weakness (the lies about the fear of flying AND Ford's best friends refutation of her claims because of "health issues"???).

This is not decipherable by a sledge hammer (the author of this article), but sharp scalpels tease it apart nicely (the smart set at FR).

[miserare]

Hah!

[alloysteel]

I do not see this person, Rachel Mitchell, as a “deep state fixer” but as someone who was not given sufficient time to develop her line of inquiry to its maximum potential. Because of the constraints of time, she could only pursue a line of questioning as submitted by the member for whom she was a surrogate for the allotted five minutes, than the line of questioning was further fragmented by switching perspectives to the next member for whom she was serving as a surrogate.

Finally Lindsey Graham stepped in and took the line of questioning on the warpath, and not a simple experiment in building “empathy”.

The Democrats, on the other hand, were giving campaign speeches, at the expense of Christine Blasey Ford, whom they used cynically and with great manipulation, without regard to her personal circumstances.

In the end, Blasey Ford was pretty much reduced to the level of a trembling adolescent child, as reflected in her manner and her response to questions, with only rare and mostly condescending references to her as a person.

While this may have won her great admiration among many for her “bravery”, never was her honest capability to recall facts ever actually questioned.

[Ted Grant]

She’s an actor. She read her lines. She played her part. That’s all.

[2CAVTrooper]

There are other things crazy buzzard fraud lied about.

It’s all a matter if it even gets investigated.

The fact she calls herself a “research psychologist” when under CA state law she can’t call herself a psychologist without a license.

There is her timeline about the “second front door”. Someone found that it may have been as early as 2007 or 2008 to around 2011 that the door was installed. She claimed 2012.

What time around 2012 did Willard mittens mention who he would place on the SC if given the chance?

[Mr Rogers]

“You are the only one who doesn’t think she struck the right balance for public consumption”

Really? She acted like a total idiot. Asked nothing worthwhile. Totally missed the point - asking the supposed victim about any details that she had not provided, or why there were discrepancies. A waste of air, which is why the GOP dumped her when Kavanaugh gave them a breath of courage.

[IrishBrigade]

‘Walking in like Al Capone with a bat ain’t going to work.’

you Mitchell defenders are pushing the PC culture that has effectively ruined this nation...why shouldn’t this witness be aggressively queried, other than the prevailing zeitgeist that female egos are more fragile than bone china dishware...?