Exonerated are not, Rachel Mitchell did a terrible job in questioning Christine Ford.
There were numerous times she could have zeroed in on inconsistencies or oddities in Ford’s testimony.
For instance, she could have challenged Ford on her ability to remember that she only had 1 beer, but not who took her home.
In other words, she could have highlighted the questionable responses from Ford in such a way that the audience at home could recognize them.
She wasn’t there to cross-examine. She was there to collect information. Her typical job is to interview someone who claims they are a victim of a sex crime, and then determine whether to charge a perpetrator.
In her report she mentioned the issues you referred to.
Read the report all the way through. Mitchell cites many of your points.
Actually mitchell handled this exactly right.....the assumption ‘by everyone’ was she was a ‘victim’ with her story to tell. But this, we would learn, was without any proof or evidence that would qualify her as a victim of anything apart from her ‘saying’ so.
However nobody knew if or not this was the case which is why they handled her with kid gloves.....which set the stage all by itself. Thus mitchell, having decades of experience with these cases had to soft approach......this was not a court case or it would have been far more forthright.
It worked....she cut her own throat and we all saw and heard it. I never believed and still don’t that she was attacked by anyone......though could have thought so in her mind at one time....I no longer believe even that.
I see what you’re saying, but the questioning was done on live tv, in a room full of partisan hacks, w/ a complicit media going apoplectic over the fact that that the Evil Republican’s brought in an Evil Republican to badger the victim, thereby bringing back all the horrible memories and causing unneeded stress. That would have played right into the hands of the Dem’s and the narrative they’re trying to push.
The lies were out there, already. She was able to get them, under oath and on live tv. Yes, she probably could have done a little better, but she got the job done.
This ain't a Perry Mason rerun.
How could she possibly have done a *good* job??? She had 5 minute blocks to make a point and "Doctor" Ford was stalling her constantly.The Rats clearly coached her to do exactly that.The Rats knew at the outset that the whole setup was a huge advantage to them...they each got 5 minutes to tell the world how brave she was to fly all the way to DC while the "prosecutor" got to wait while she reviewed documents.
I didn’t watch all of it, did she ask why Ford left her friend in the midst of rapists without the least bit of concern for her?
Are you thinking with your brain or feeling with your emotions?
She described a proper forensic interview and got Ford to agree that it would have been fairer, easier and more accurate than the hearing was.
She then established, by Ford's own testimony, that Eschoo, Feinstein and both of her lawyers deliberately steered her away from a sensible and proper forensic interview, by never mentioning the possibility, and into the Roman circus of the hearing.
It left Ford with the inescapable conclusion that all four of those people had shamelessly used her and you could see it on her face.