Posted on 10/03/2018 7:27:33 AM PDT by TigerClaws
The decision by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley to have Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell question Christine Blasey Ford may well be remembered as a brilliant — and quite possibly pivotal — choice.
No doubt, allowing Mitchell to ask questions instead of Republican senators served a defensive purpose, avoiding the spectacle of a bunch of old, white men publicly questioning a woman who says she was a victim of sexual abuse. But Mitchell’s methodical, genial approach left many supporters of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh deeply frustrated, with some complaining that Mitchell was “not laying a glove” on Ford.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I do notice on CNN, ect, they are coming out to blast Mitchell for her report.
The GFM phenomenon is benign, but also telling of the public mood and discourse. Frankly Ford did not do as well as she should have.
“Rachel Mitchell expertly eviscerates the case against Kavanaugh” ... so well, that most people couldn’t even tell. /s
This wasn’t a “court of law”. This was a show trial for the public.
Sly, fancy, lawyer techniques were wasted on the masses (jury).
Unless they CHARGE CBF with perjury, her questioning was a waste of time.
Mitchell only acted like she was empathetic to put Ford as ease. She’s been doing this for 26 years, so she has seen it all. Mitchell wasn’t fooled for a minute.
bump
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.