The Arizona prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday told Republican senators after the hearing that she wouldn’t have prosecuted Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on evidence she heard, the Washington Post reported, citing an individual familiar with the prosecutor’s comments. In my experience, she is a very pointed questioner of adverse witnesses. She’s very calm. She’s very logical.
Advertisement
Jerry Sheridan, former county chief deputy sheriff who oversaw the re-examination of unresolved cases, said the unit under Mitchell had a key role in establishing protocols and victims crisis centers across the Phoenix metro area to in the wake of the controversy.
“We as prosecutors can only file cases that we feel there’s a reasonable likelihood of conviction and so that is not really her role tomorrow”, says Nanetti. But in a confirmation process marked by theatrics, drama, and partisan bickering, Mitchell’s presence and her professional conduct was the closest the Senate has come to decency and normalcy in months. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison with lifetime probation.
He called her “victim centered”, but not so much so that she loses objectivity. Speaking to KJZZ about that earlier this year, she described the challenges of preventing such crimes.
As well, the three witnesses whom Ford claims were present at the house have denied all knowledge of her claims under penalty of purjury – not to mention Kavanaugh’s forceful and often emotional denial in testimony, which stunned observers coming from the normally mild-mannered federal judge.
Looking back on her career in 2011, Mitchell told Frontline she had been drawn to prosecuting sex crimes after working as a law clerk for a senior attorney on a case involving a youth choir director having committed an offense. “Did you know that?” And yet, she’s going to be on the other side in essence challenging the credibility of Ms. Ford.
The California psychology professor, who goes by Christine Blasey professionally, and Kavanaugh are both scheduled to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. Sen. He said he was contacted by staff members of the Judiciary Committee over the weekend about Mitchell’s qualifications. He doesn’t expect fireworks from her at the hearing. I think including the detail about interviewing two possible “real attackers” is part of that strategy. Knowing her, she will not, you know, go off with the insane rhetoric that sometimes happens when the glare of the cameras are on you.
“The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process”, he said. He says she’s a prosecutor through and through.
“It’s a recipe for disaster”, Romley said. Will it spare Republicans any Anita Hill moments, or will it backfire?
It is not necessary for Kavanaugh (above left) to secure majority approval of the committee in order to advance to the full Senate, but a favorable recommendation could bode well for his imperiled nomination – and vice versa.
Advertisement
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced Tuesday that he hired Rachel Mitchell, an outside attorney to question Kavanaugh and Ford, on behalf of the 11 male Republicans on the committee – despite Ford’s wishes to be questioned by the senators themselves about her accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when the two were teenagers.
