Questioning method fell flat: experts

Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was meant to be an ace-in-the-hole for Republicans Thursday during the televised questioning of alleged sexual assault victim Christine Blasey Ford — but the ploy may have backfired, experts said.

Mitchell, a seasoned interviewer who usually works in a Phoenix courtroom, was brought to Washington to chip away at Ford's credibility — and provide cover for the 11 Republican men on the Senate Judiciary Committee worried about bad optics.

But the format didn't favor Mitchell's careful probing of Ford, who claims she was a victim of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh, a Supreme Court justice nominee, when they were teenagers.

Mitchell (inset), who usually doesn't face time limits when talking to witnesses, was limited by the committee's five-minute rule.

The Arizona sex crimes prosecutor asked about the alleged assault and when Ford first contacted lawmakers with her allegations. Mitchell's tenor suggested she was trying to throw doubt on the reliability of Ford's memory.

She hammered Ford on her fear of flying. She asked who had paid for her legal team and polygraph. But the questioning never led anywhere, experts noted.

“Unless you have something very significant, what do you ask her? You point out what she doesn't remember or that she has a bias in some way, I guess. But what else do you do beyond that?” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said. “There's no point in carrying it on. A cross examination that should been five minutes turned into 60.”

Esther Choo, a doctor and researcher specializing in sexual violence and abuse, said Ford's credibility easily withstood the scattered shots fired by Mitchell.

“It's consistent with trauma,” Choo said. “There are certain excruciating details that are there very vividly, but there are others that fade into the background because that's what happens when you experience a fight or flight moment.”