Selective Memory….

Some thought the decision by the Senate Judiciary Committee to have Rachel Mitchell, the experienced Arizona sex crimes prosecutor question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was a bad idea.  Turns out, it may have been the smartest move of all time.   If Dr. Ford’s recollection of the events is the basis of the evidence against Judge Kavanaugh then the fact that there are significant holes in those recollections is a major issue.   We are all for giving a wide berth to victims of sexual crimes as some times memories are distorted or blocked out.   But this was a long time ago and either you remember certain things or you don’t.

It is quite obvious that it makes more sense having another woman ask questions to Dr. Ford instead of a bunch of Republican male Senators; but there was something greater at work here.  Something so covert you might have to be one of those Democratic intern operatives to figure it out.

You see, prosecutors such as Ms. Mitchell ask questions in a general, then systematic approach that frustrates the witness and of course anyone else watching the situation.   While those who believe Dr. Ford’s statements and allegations are false, they were concerned that her testimony was for the public and the media frenzy surrounding it.   What no one focused on is that the show was for the Democrats but the question and answer session by Ms. Mitchell was really to assist in helping push the undecided Republican Senators over the fence.

If you were focused on Dr. Ford’s testimony then you missed the precision-targeted questions of Ms. Mitchell.   The specific and fundamental questioning by Mitchell unearthed a very decent amount of facts that undermine Ford’s credibility and in turn any potential case against Judge Kavanaugh.   Remember we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in the United States, or at least we were the last time we checked.   We do understand most missed the basic prosecutorial meander down primrose path and that is why only some of us were elated to see such a seasoned prosecutor handle the questioning.

There were also further close door sessions where Ms. Mitchell gave a follow-up to the Republican Senators about the fact that in her opinion no “reasonable” prosecutor would bring such a case based on the evidence.   Once again, there is no “there, there”.  Sorry to everyone who had Judge Kavanaugh tarred and feathered already due to the fact that he liked to have beer in college.   This was based on the fact that as Mitchell elicited through her questioning, Ford’s recollection of the suspected event deviated based on timing and certain aspects of the proposed party she claims they were at.

Mitchell went on to say that Dr. Ford had little to no recollection of certain key pieces of the night in question.   It was these specific facts that could have helped her legitimize her own story.   By way of example, Mitchell stated that she did not know who invited her to the party, or how she heard about it happening and even how she got there.   So she went to a party some thirty-six (36) years ago, and does not remember who told her about it or how she got there?   What is even more disturbing about it and keep in mind Mitchell is very right to point out, this all supposedly happened before mobile phones were a common thing.  But supposedly Dr. Ford has no idea how she got home.   Did she lie and have more than one beer?   Now in the world before mobile phones, one would have to pre-arrange a ride or have to call someone right?  A friend?  A cab? A parent?  And no one remembers?   COME ON.

Mitchell also specifically points out in her report to Republicans that Dr. Ford’s friend Leland who was supposedly the only other girl at the party, did not even ask Dr. Ford where she was when she was supposedly upstairs all that time.    As the only other woman at a party where things were supposedly happening of a sexual nature isn’t that odd?   Your friend disappears for all that time and you don’t inquire?  Mitchell states that in her over twenty-five years as a prosecutor this seems highly unlikely.

Another thing that I bet most of you missed was that Dr. Ford not only did not know the committee would have traveled to see her; (which was blamed on her lawyer) but she claimed to have a fear of flying.    That is why she delayed the hearing a week or so right? Well during questioning she explained how she flies to from California to the East Coast at least once a year and has flown to many other places.  ANOTHER COMPLETE CONTRADICTION AND BLATANT LIE.    She claims to have flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia and Costa Rica! Hardly short flights for someone with anxiety about flying!!

Ford also had trouble remembering what she showed to reporters from The Post, which happen a week or two ago, but could clearly remember things from thirty-six (36) years ago?  Sorry Dr. Ford, not buying what you’re selling.   Dr. Ford could not even remember the day she took the polygraph test.   She also could not remember if it was video taped or recorded.   So what is the problem? She takes so many polygraphs it was hard to remember which one? These are simple pieces of information that make her sound like she is completely not credible.

Has anyone explained to her that lying to a federal official is a crime? ……….