Mitchell may be a prosecutor but it clearly appears she was commissioned in this instance to simply ask questions, not to cross-exam or defend K (that became apparent when she added an "ok" after most of Ford's responses). She performed her role, and while she may have been too cautious it is just too close to call.
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.
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.
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.
“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?