Amid the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that served as a platform for Senate Democrats to continue their miscarriage of justice in the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the choice of Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to ask questions on behalf of Republican senators baffled everyone.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who expressed skepticism of the decision going in, was especially critical, insisting that Mitchell was “totally and completely incompetent” in questioning Christine Blasey Ford.
“I was criticized very much for making that point I turned out to be 100 percent right,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“She was totally and completely incompetent in terms of asking cross-examination questions,” he continued. “Because she has little experience.”
What may be lost in the mix is that the “prosecutor chick,” as Mitchell was called on social media, deprived Democrats of the screaming headline they were hoping to get from Ford’s testimony. Her methodical effort to get the accuser, who was under oath, on record with her accusations and to establish the facts was doomed to fail in the on again, off again 5 minute segments she was given, but it did minimize emotional displays from the alleged victim that the media could then play off of — which would have taken on added significance, coming from old white Republican men.
But Dershowitz had a point in telling host Tucker Carlson that Mitchell did little to draw into question Ford’s credibility.
“For example, the main issue now is whether or not [Ford] recognized Kavanaugh correctly,” he said. “She was never asked whether ‘how well she knew him, how many times she encountered him before this. How close was their relationship?’”
For what it’s worth, Ford did tell Mitchell that she was “100 percent” certain that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her 36 years ago.
The law professor said Mitchell did a “terrible” job and that’s why she was pulled. The GOP eventually stopped calling on her and took it upon themselves, to ask questions. That wasn’t lost on the liberal media that did it’s best to spin it into something sinister and sexist:
Tucker agreed with Dershowitz however, chiming in to say for “those of us who ask questions for a living sat and watched with our mouths open wondering throughout ‘what was the point of this.”
“You have to have a theory,” Dershowitz replied. “Every question has to be part of a tactic. You ask question “A” in order to lay a foundation for “B.” She was just asking questions. It just didn’t seem to go anywhere. She didn’t have much of a point. And in the end, she accomplished nothing.”
“Yes, Brett Kavanaugh defended himself. Nobody else was,” Tucker accurately noted. “Other than Lindsey Graham.”
The Arizona prosecutor, while being ridiculed online, made for an interesting debate on social media about her performance.
Here’s a sampling of responses from Twitter:
Rachel Mitchell, Republican’s outside questioner, privately told GOP senators tonight that based on the evidence she heard at the hearing, she would not have prosecuted or even been able to obtain a search warrant, according to three Republicans
— Nicholas Fandos (@npfandos) September 28, 2018
My understanding is that Rachel Mitchell, despite her lackluster performance at the hearing, was helpful at the conference meeting, explaining how there is no corroboration for Ford’s account, in fact negative corroboration
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) September 28, 2018
Not that you need Rachel Mitchell to say this obvious truth, but this is what I mean when I say I can't imagine any Republican voting no after today. https://t.co/PhzucLXlac
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 28, 2018
What was lackluster about her? No one knew what her role was supposed to be and she was given Little time to prep. She was superb under the circumstances and served her county well
— David F. Olave (@davidfolave) September 28, 2018
I thought she did a wonderful job. She was methodical and the Dems weren’t able to counter.
— ZaffoZaza (@ZaffoZaza) September 28, 2018
I thought she did a good job setting up Feinstein as the person who leaked the letter pulse she revealed a few inconsistencies in her story. Republicans did a good job labeling Feinstein as someone using a sexual assault claim for political propaganda.
— thomas mcmahon (@tmac12840) September 28, 2018
I think she served a purpose today and that was to draw out Dr. Ford’s memory lapses. I think if she’d treated Ford as a hostile witness, the optics would have been as bad as 11 white males questioning her. And the recent memory lapses did matter to me.
— Teri Peters (@hipEchik) September 28, 2018
In the end, it may have been an effective strategy, considering how liberals saw it:
— Rick Smith (@RickSmithShow) September 27, 2018
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Did Sunny Hostin just admit on air to breaking the law by voting for her son? - November 8, 2022
- Stacey Abrams justifies trailing in the polls by suggesting black men are too stupid to back her - November 7, 2022
- Kevin McCarthy has message for Pelosi telling Dems to ‘change the subject’ away from inflation - October 24, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.