Posted on 09/29/2018 12:17:27 PM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
OTOH she sure got a gleam in her eye when it was time to question BK. An entire change in her tone and decidedly UNfriendly.
Apparently Graham and Cornyn noticed it too because they sent her packing and took back the questioning duties.
An attorney does not have to be hostile to get some good stuff out a witness if they are competent. IMO Alan Dershowitz was right, we needed a seasoned defense attorney expert in cross-examination.
“But then you bear down and turn up the heat.”
The investigator always needs to remain gentle - a good cop.
All the information actually there, plus motivations, needs to get pried out, gently.
Actually I think Mitchell did a pretty good job considering. Had she been aggressive, Ford’s attorneys could have possibly stopped the hearing and walked out. The optics would have been the “mean-spirited” GOP victimized Ford again.
She poked several holes in Ford’s story concerning the music upstairs, her “hearing” conversation with the others after the alleged “attack”, her inconsistency on fear of flying, and the fact that although she is the “face” of the accuser, she is not “in-charge” but rather being told what to do by obvious Democratic-operative attorneys.
One of the most telling admissions was the questioning about the polygraph. Ford said the polygraph was either the day of or day after her grandmothers funeral. She took it at the airport because she was flying to Delaware. If you had just buried your grandmother, wouldn’t you REMEMBER taking a polygraph the SAME DAY? Is there any possibility she had taken any type of medication (OTC or prescription) to deal with the stress of the moment?
Taking a polygraph on a day that you bury a loved one is probably not conducive to accurate results. And, was the examiner aware of this prior to the test?
The biggest takeaway was her admission Sen. Feinstein recommended the law firm she hired at the same time Judge Kavanaugh’s hearings were underway. She was advised prior to the public hearings and also prior to Kavanaugh meeting with DiFi one-on-one. This was an admission of a classic political hit job which, if the Republicans would grow a set, could be the basis of an ethics complaint.
Taking everything into consideration, I think Mitchell did a much better job than having Republican Senators bloviate and not raising any doubts about her testimony.
“How well did Ford know Kavanaugh?”
Just before I had to leave my house at 2pm, Ford offered to describe her past relationships with Kavanaugh.
‘They needed a woman to do it for them.’
you have precisely stated what is exceedingly wrong with this nation today, and why the left wing will prevail going forward when the current crop in Congress passes...what possible reason, other than mental insanity, requires that Republicans need to treat females like priceless antiques...?
“The 5 min. format” really messed things up.
The Democrats should have ceded their time like Republicans, but grandstanding was just all that mattered to most of the Democrats.
Ford even ADMITTED that "Google interns" use that door, providing an opening you could drive a Mack truck through regarding rental income on that property.
Did Mitchell pursue that angle? Nooo, she just let poor little quaking victim get away with her "I'm so traumatized by this assault I need an additional escape route" line.
Sorry, I watched every minute and just saw blown opportunity after blown opportunity. IMO if we had gotten even a couple of powerful nuggets to impeach the credibility everyone seems to think this dame has maybe Flake could have found his spine and would have made a clean "Yes" vote.
I hope so. It's just sad to see the judge and his family dragged through this circus another week.
“She was semi-effective in showing that Ford lied about her fear of flying.”
very effective
The planes that fly to Manchester, NH are probably the more crash prone types.
“her demeanor changed when interviewing Kav. Very accusatory.”
Yup. She coddled Dr. Fraud and pounced on BK. Right then I knew where she was coming from.
I agree. Many of the detractors know only TV courtrooms. I’ve never been in court either. She had to walk a tightrope
Republicans are afraid of women.
“She finished her obligation by informing R members that as a prosecutor, based on Ford’s allegations she would not have had a basis for justifying a search warrant, nor would she be able to bring an action against the accused. I.e., she found the complaint not credible.”
I’d heard she said that. Do you know if it’s a rumor, or if she said it in some formal way — in writing, verbally to senators?
But in the meantime, we are a country at war...the Left has attacked our reality, our faith, our values, our country.
No sense in describing what is wrong with our country. Those of us who have been paying attention know full-well what is wrong.
We are under attack by the postmodern/communists on the Left.
Quit yur complainin and armor up.;-)
Yes. Make sure that Ford would not steal the show.
Additionally, Ford unintentionally gave away information she might not have during a attack questioning.
“what possible reason, other than mental insanity, requires that Republicans need to treat females like priceless antiques...?”
What reason? The reason is Democrats.
They say they want equal rights for women. But then they want to be able to treat women like fragile flowers, too. I was going to say, “You can’t have it both ways.” But apparently Democrats can.
It was reported that she made an oral statement at a meeting of 51 Republican senators Thursday night.
Given that, we on the Right have to make sure that the Hard Left doesn't pick off (i.e. win over) our women by using gender related issues.
Er-frikken-go, we needed a woman to run interference for the old white men on the Committee.
Capishe?
She actually volunteered information she was not asked. That is contrary to the first piece of advice that an attorney will give a client.
I am particularly interested in the friendship between her brother and Chris Garrett.
Either she's lying outright. Or something else is wrong, in which case the Dems are just using an ill woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.