Posted on 09/28/2018 1:55:39 AM PDT by zeestephen
Alan Dershowitz did not hold back his thoughts when asked about Rachel Mitchell’s cross-examination during Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony Thursday on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I disagree. This was theater. Her job was to ask firm questions in a serious manner but without looking like she was pressing too hard, and run out the clock so we could say "we had a hearing'. She did so. No viewer can credibly conclude that she was too harsh with Ford. She conducted the hearing without costing us any votes. That's as good as it could have been. All viewers on both sides had already made their minds up, and only Kavanaugh could have changed that, not Ford.
-—The strategy was not to make Ford look bad, it was to make the Democrats look bad——
Nailed it! 100% right.
Another thing was to demonstrate Ford was lying/disturbed, but to do so in a gentle way where the audience could conclude that on their own just by hearing her, rather than being pushed there by belligerent questions which look bad politically (and something the Dems would have capitalized on).
“Correct,She was the wrong choice for the job”
I disagree. She was the perfect choice for the job. Ford’s testimony didn’t mean squat. Even if the Republicans had documentation that Ford was lying and waved it at her, Democrats would still believe her because that’s their base.
Having Mitchell interview her corrected the optic that this was about 11 white men abusing a woman. The Democrats didn’t get that optic so it couldn’t be broadcast on every station with commentators going after 11 white Republican men. And, it appeased Jeff Flake, who by the way asked the best question of the hearing. “Senator Kavanaugh, Do you believe in God?”
I understand wanting to breathe fire against your enemies, but you need to do that at a time of your own choosing, which gives you the most benefit, and in the right direction. Which Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham eventually did.
You don’t brazenly attack at the precise time your enemy wants you to, and fall into his trap, so he can use your aggressiveness to damage you.
“The hasty stroke oft goes astray” —JRR Tolkien
People (you are an exception, obviously), seemed to think Mitchell’s job was to act as a prosecutor would during a trial with the perp and/or a hostile witness and to “break” Ford, prove her a liar, come up with a Perry Mason/Columbo moment, etc.
No, that was not her job. Her job was to:
- Prevent the damaging optic of all, mostly old, white Republicans “attacking” poor Chrissy Ford, sexual assault victim. The bad optics were avoided.
- Prevent charges that Ford was abused, handled roughly, etc. during the hearing. Mitchell’s experience in gently getting info out of true sexual assault victims worked beautifully with Ford. Mitchell elicited several occasions where Ford was lying or appeared to have lied. Certainly, she brought out how bad Ford’s memories were, both short term & long term, EXCEPT those required to stop Kavanaugh. To anyone with an open mind, that was apparent.
- Give Senators like Flake (also from AZ like Mitchell - supposedly she was who he wanted to do the questioning), Collins, Murkowski, etc. the Ford hearing they wanted, without causing further damage to the Republicans. That is the hearing they got.
- Give Kavanaugh a chance to hear the specific accusations against him for the first time and to rebut each and every one. Mitchell brought up every salient point/accusation from Ford and gave Kavanaugh that opportunity to forcefully and unequivocally deny them.
Mitchell did her job in a competent, workmanlike way and accomplished her goals.
As for Grassley, I am not unhappy with him during this hearing. He was not antagonistic toward Kavanaugh that I saw - he interrupted several times when Kavanaugh was being bashed by Dems (like over the FBI investigation bullsh!t they kept bringing up). Several times he gave Kavanaugh extra time to answer a Democr@p question/accusation in full. He ran the hearing efficiently, kept it moving along, and stayed in control.
I agree. Mitchell was 1st up and instantly found a broken woman and had to get out some facts without blowing her up. If Ford had literally fallen apart the day could have turned out very differently, Mitchell was perfect.
There are two important questions:
1) Is she competent? I'd say, in the normal course of her job, yes.
2) Does she have any incentive to do her utmost in questioning Ford? NO. Mitchell is a big city prosecutor. Her job depends on keeping her real bosses happy, and the people her employment depends on will NOT be happy with somebody who was a major factor in favor of Kavanaugh getting on the Court.
She had EVERY incentive to throw the case.
I was very much a Trump doubter. I had issues with Cruz, but I agree with him on more issues than almost any other GOP politician alive. Then Cruz blamed Trump for violence that the left initiated. Oops. I switched to Trump, reluctantly.
Even after President Trump won, I worried about which issues he would keep his word on. It turns out that, more than any other politician in generations, Trump's goal is to keep his word on every issue. I'd call that a big win for America. Of all areas, judicial nominees is the one where Trump has done the best job on keeping his word, in large part because he doesn't need much from the GOP itself - all we need to do is make sure he keeps 51 nominally GOP US Senators.
Actually, how she did the job is irrelevant. She was never going to be abe to extract any thing that ws not already known. She was not going to make any difference one way or the other.
The Democraats wanted two things.
To be able to raise a hue and cry of condemnation for hitting the girl
To be able to plant the seed that an FBI investigtion was necessary before the procedural matters could proceed and create from thin air a delay
“””it was most likely FLAKE that told Grassley to do it!”””
I believe Jon Kyl was Kavanaugh’s handler when he met with the Senators. If so, Kyl may have been involved in picking Mitchell.
meh
The repubs weren’t looking for a cross examination. Enough was shown.
Also note the Detsch wants an FBI investigation. Just goes to show
You are a TROLL.
YES. He was Trump”s nominee.
YES. He is a GREAT NOMINEE.
NO. There was NOTHING in his background.
YES. This was a typical Bork-Cain-Thomas attack.
And YES, you are a TROLL.
Absolutely.
If we had not then seen Kavanaugh follow, i might agree. However, it was not a trial... and we were left with the perception the GOP treated her with kid gloves regardless of her inconsistencies while Kavanaugh was emotional and badgered by the left.
The only reason ‘Dershowitz’ is saying this is because it was effective he’s pissed
Hard to believe this woman actually tried cases. She behaved more like a tax attorney with no knowledge of the art of cross examination.But that is what you get when affirmative action takes precedence in the hiring process.
What an incredibly stupid comment. Donald Trump had nothing to do with hiring her; that's all on Grassley and the Repub. Senators on the committee. But your neverTrump animus is so strong you just couldn't resist a cheap shot.
All part of the plan.
Quit bringing Trump into this. You keep doing that.
Absolutely. Place nice because the votes are locked in as long as there is no political bombshell.
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.