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 ...
Disagree with those who say Mitchell did poorly. She was dealt a difficult hand and personally I thought did quite well. She brought out and highlighted many of the inconsistancies of her “story” and did so while being limited to five minute sessions — hard to do. No matter how easy Repub senators were on Ford, they would have been ostracized by Dems and their media propaganda machine. Made sense for the Senators to take over once Kavanaugh was up to help bring out his side of things. So, while I would like for Mitchell to go for the jugular, I don’t think the situation allowed it and I think she did best she could.
I agree that Rachel was too easy, slow, inadequate. But I believe that it was because of her inadequacies, that the country and Sen. Graham began to feel so helpless that Graham was able to express everyone’s frustration. If the senators had questioned Ford themselves, I doubt the build up and then the Graham “speech” would have happened. We needed Graham’s speech! It pulled us all together.
I thought Mitchell did a good job given the circumstances.
IMHO Ford is completely lying and Rachel Mitchell exposed her deception on several fronts. The false claim of her fear of flying, the volume of the music at the alleged incident, the refusal to provide any fact that could be used to definitively prove or refute her story. I also thought it was telling that this women was willing to submit to a lie detector test on the day of her grandmother’s funeral.
Anyone who watched Mitchell’s examination of Ford and claims that Ford was a credible witness is either blind or just trying to be politically correct.
“I am particularly interested in the friendship between her brother and Chris Garrett.”
Can you elaborate?
Very noticeable change in demeanor. Concur.
CBF mentioned that she knew Garrett through her brother because they were friends.
If Chrissy was spending every day during the summer at the country club pool (presumably without her parents), a likely way that she got there was through one of her older brothers.
If she really did go to parties directly from the country club, it is reasonable to think that she was tagging along with her brother.
I don’t know many parents that would let their 15 year old daughter spend the day away from home, without at least understanding her transportation arrangements.
I have two older sisters. The only ways that I would ever have been allowed to spend the day away from home during the summer were if I was with a friend’s parent, or with one of my older siblings who could drive.
Yep...something is not right with her or her family. In a court of law, all this would have come out under brutal questioning. Under Senate Powderpuff rules, nope, can’t say anything mean or disparaging to the girl.
I have to correct my last post to you.
CBF testified that she was friends with CG’s younger brother. She did not say that CG was friends with her older brother.
But I am still interested in whether she tagged along with her older brother to parties. It is one way to explain the transportation issues.
I think you have it exactly backwards.
It is “old-school” to treat women with deference and politeness. This also happens to be the correct way to treat them, by the way.
The PC culture that has “ruined this nation”, as you are correct to point out, is that women are interchangeable with men and belong in politics and the work-place and hearings like this “going toe-to-toe” with the men, because they really are just men.
That creates the schizoid behavior that you see, and which the feminist “womyn” like. They expect to get to have it both ways.
And then reported to the GOP Chair, “There's no efffff’n case to warrant pursuing further.” ...but more politely.
As okeydoker points out it was poorly planned by Grassley, and it seems that way to me as well.
Grassley's audience should have been the Dems, the uncertain R's and the American public. Rational R's with legal training already knew the allegations were not corroborated and were essentially baseless.
IMO, Mitchell should have been commissioned to not only demonstrate the inconsistencies in Ford's statements and testimony, but also to underscore the complete absence of any basis to believe the event occurred or that K was the actor.
Thereafter, her report should have been made to the chair during the broadcasted hearing in the form of a statement of findings. The Dems likely would have walked out but the committee and the American public would have been better informed much better served. Judge K certainly would have received a more effective and balanced hearing; which, of course, was the overall reason for the event.
I argue that if left to Mitchell she could have done all of that very well without being abusive or offensive to Ford.
I think Graham spoke exactly as planned. As Mitchell was questioning Kavanaugh before Durbin’s turn, I noticed that she was coming to the last page from which she was reading her questions, and at the end of her questioning, she turned the pile upside down. That made me wonder what she was going to do after Durbin’s five minutes. Did she have another stack of papers with additional questions? When Graham started speaking, I realized that it was planned that she would ask no additional questions.
TY
Next time I’m on trial for train rapes, please, bring her in to question me.
The constant interruptions for Senators who praise Blowsey for her bravery didn’t help. I don’t think I was the only one who didn’t notice her leaving.
Lamb Chop would have roasted Ford compared to Mitchell’s act.
She never came to a point about the maps. Here’s a map. Flip. Here’s a map. Flip. Here’s a map. Interruption. What?!?
She was a waste of my tax dollars. This whole thing has been a waste of my tax dollars. Every day they’re in office is a waste of my tax dollars.
I used to work for CPS (no, don’t start) and let me tell you these folks are much much harder with kids than Widdle Miss Precocious Three Year Old.
Then why did they push so hard for a new FBI investigation?
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.