Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee came up with a solution to the optics problem of an all-male panel questioning a woman about her sexual assault claims: They hired a woman to do it for them. But it might have backfired. Christine Blasey Ford is testifying in front of the committee about her claim that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school (which he has denied). The hearing got very strange very fast when Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor Republicans hired, started her line of questioning. Mitchell started out asking some oddly narrow questions, like when Ford wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) detailing her allegations. It wasn’t clear what point Mitchell was trying to make, but it had a prosecutor-style feel that normally builds to a point — but before it got there, Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), the Republican chair of the committee, interrupted. “Ms. Mitchell, I don’t know whether this is fair to interrupt, I want to keep people within five minutes. Is that a major problem for you in the middle of a question?” Grassley asked. “Can I go to Sen. Feinstein?” And just like that, Mitchell’s questioning was cut off. Feinstein, the ranking Democrat who was next in line to ask Ford questions, got five minutes of her own. Then the ball went back to Grassley, who tossed it to Mitchell, who picked back up where she left off — asking about the details of that letter. The whiplash of going to back and forth from a prosecutor strangely putting someone who has said she was sexually assaulted on trial and a normal Senate hearing is incredibly jarring: not at all what you’d want from a hearing designed to get at the truth of what really happened to Christine Blasey Ford. This format is a disaster on all levels: moral, legal, and political. And, at heart, it’s Republicans’ fault. Why the hearing is such a mess In a typical hearing, the senators ask witnesses questions. Each senator gets five minutes to talk, alternating between Democrats and Republicans. But in this case, Republicans were too afraid to do the questioning on their own. The images of the 11 white men who make up the Republican committee membership questioning Ford were bad on their own. There was also a not-insignificant possibility that one of those men would say something offensive to Ford or about sexual assault in general. So they decided to outsource the questioning to Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona, but keep the typical alternating format. Mitchell would just take the place of each Republican, trading off with Democrats and picking up when their time was up. The bulk of the Ford hearings have proven this “compromise” to be a disaster. Mitchell has approached her job like a prosecutor (or perhaps more aptly, as Kavanaugh’s defense attorney) going after a hostile witness, pressing Ford on various details of her story — at one point asking her to identify her house on a map, for example. Cross-examinations like this work at trial because they build to a point: The prosecutor establishes facts and then uses them to trap the witness into saying something damaging or inconsistent. As former federal sex crimes prosecutor Allison Leotta explains: Do not for a minute think this sex crimes prosecutor is trying to find the truth about a sex crime. This is how you cross examine someone. Nail down the documents, then start picking apart minor details. #Kavanaugh — Allison Leotta (@AllisonLeotta) September 27, 2018 I’d hoped Rachel Mitchell would act like a prosecutor, but she is 100% acting as the Republicans’ defense attorney. #KavanaghHearing — Allison Leotta (@AllisonLeotta) September 27, 2018 It’s impossible for Mitchell to build this kind of momentum when she keeps having to stop questioning every five minutes. After the Democrats speak, it’s very hard, just as someone watching the hearing, to follow what Mitchell is trying to get at. The point of all the questioning gets muddled and eventually lost. The format also leads to the bad optics that Republicans were trying to avoid: Grassley, who looks and sounds like white male privilege personified, constantly interrupting a woman for somewhat inane reasons. Finally, and most importantly, the very presence of Mitchell — and her prosecutorial approach — reveals what’s really going on here. Republicans want to paint Ford as a witness who is not credible and grill her on every detail to try to establish some problem with her testimony. They don’t appear to be listening to Ford; instead, they’ve brought in a hit woman because they’re too cowardly to go after her themselves. It reveals that Republicans are less interested in getting to the bottom of things and more interested in setting this up as a he-said, she-said debate between Kavanaugh and Ford — which it isn’t, as Ford says that Kavanaugh had an accomplice, Mark Judge, whom Republicans have declined to subpoena. (Judge has denied the accusation.) The upshot of all of this is that Ford is treated as if she’s lying, without any redeeming value of illuminating the truth of what happened back in 1982. It’s politically damaging for Republicans, a dubious advocacy role to assign to a prosecutor, and just not fair to Ford. There may be one upshot to this farce of a hearing: It is very unlikely to overshadow Ford’s moving, brave, and exceedingly credible opening statement.<doc-sep>The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee hired Arizona Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question a terrified Dr. Christine Blasey Ford instead of appearing on camera to hammer a victim of sexual assault. But the plan failed spectacularly. The Republicans have refused to allow an FBI investigation, or indeed any investigation, much less a trial. Yet, the prosecutor treated it like a trial with a cross-examination requesting details about every possible component to the story. Mitchell was forced to start and stop her lawyering every five minutes. It contrasted probing questions with emotional and empathetic statements from Democrats. "A polished liar can create a seamless story, but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). When Mitchell asked questions it differed considerably. "Was it loud?" Mitchell asked at one point about the party. "No. Not in the living room," Dr. Ford replied. "Besides the music that you have described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that that was adding?" Mitchell asked. "No," Dr. Ford replied. "No there wasn't a stereo playing downstairs?" Mitchell asked. "No," Ford said. Each segment of the hearing continued on in that manner. Watch in the videos below:<doc-sep>Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell went down in flames trying to cross-examine Dr. Christine Blasey Ford making Republicans look even worse when contrasted with sympathetic Democratic senators. The internet responded to the line of questioning and the differences between the two sides with their own attacks of Mitchell calling her everything from a bad prosecutor to heartless. One attorney and blogger noted it was an "atrocious examination," watching Mitchell argue that Dr. Ford isn't credible because she flies even though she doesn't like to. Businesswoman and podcaster Aminatou Sow noted that she too is similarly fearful of flying, but noted she's approaching a high level in her frequent flyer program. She agreed it was making the GOP look even worse. ProPublica reporter Pamela Colloff noted that the questioning surrounding Dr. Ford's mental health was "ugly" and "shameful." Freelance reporter and editor Kaz Weida agreed, calling the attempt to undermine Dr. Ford's mental health "insulting." Members of Congress similarly commented, noting Mitchell came off as unsympathetic. You can read other tweets below:<doc-sep>
The Republican strategy of appointing a female special counsel to question Christine Blasey Ford appeared to backfire. After asking questions about Ford’s mental illness, texts to reporters and fear of flying, sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell appeared to intentionally eviscerate the entire format of the procedure. “Would you believe me if I told you that there’s no study that says this setting, in five minute increments, is the best way to [interview victims of trauma]?” asked Mitchell, using the question to make a larger point. “Do you know the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you on-on-one, in a private setting, and to let you do the talking?” The hearing format was designed by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to avoid having to question Ford outright, especially given the party’s legacy of presiding over the allegations against then-Justice nominee Clarence Thomas brought by Anita Hill. While many saw Mitchell’s criticism of the format as a way to undercut Ford’s credibility—over the accuser’s decision to forsake a forensic interview—others believed it discredited the strategy of Republican lawmakers. I believe she just openly eviscerated the structure of the hearing devised by the men who hired her — or did I mishear her??? https://t.co/KyXSE449HL — John Heilemann (@jheil) September 27, 2018 Mitchell’s Thursday performance has the White House worried. Shortly after Ford’s testimony began, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted that “almost every person close to Trump who had told me having a sex crimes prosecutor question Ford was good strategy is saying they think it was a mistake after the first portion of the hearing.” Almost every person close to Trump who had told me having a sex crimes prosecutor question Ford was good strategy is saying they think it was a mistake after the first portion of the hearing. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 27, 2018 In the afternoon, POLITICO reported that Trump allies were “cringing over the decision by Senate Republicans to hire a female prosecutor to question” Ford. “That’s a disaster,” one Trump administration official told the publication. “A grade of C would be generous,” attorney Michael Avenatti, who is representing another woman alleging sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, told Observer. “Scored no points because Ford was very credible.” “Authentic, emotional and believable,” added former Trump advisor Michael Caputo of Ford’s testimony. “There is a very warm place in Hell for Senate Judiciary Democrats and their ugly allies who played this out like a game designed to destroy a good man and his family just so they can get their way.”