Kamala Harris had golden question but butchered the application
I was at the Canes/North Carolina football game tonight so apologies if this has already been covered.
I was screaming in traffic en route to the game when Harris mangled the question to Kavanuagh regarding whether or not he watched Dr. Ford's testimony before his own. That was absolutely the perfect angle of attack but somehow Harris had no clue how valuable it was or how to set it up. I couldn't believe she threw it in toward the end of her time block, almost as an aside.
You might as well throw gold out the window.
An innocent person absolutely watches that testimony. Every second of it. Copious notes. Makes it the top priority. Structures and alters his opening statement solely based on what Dr. Ford said. After all, this is an outrageous claim out of nowhere out of 36 years. Who is this woman? What could she possibly be accusing me of? I've seen snippets in the press but here is the actual accuser and every detail. Maybe I can figure out who she could be confusing me with. I can counter anything and everything she says. Since I am in the catbird seat going second without a Dr. Ford followup window the last word will be my own.
But a guilty person doesn't want to be reminded. A guilty person thought this would never surface again. A guilty person can't stand to look at the face of the woman he victimized. He can't stand to hear a voice he might remember, or any gesture or idiosyncrasy common to Dr. Ford. A guilty person knows he can't counter a truthful summary from his accuser so he totally ignores it and embraces the Roy Cohn/Donald Trump method of savaging anyone in his path, truth be damned, since only the bottom line matters.
I was really shocked Kamala Harris blew it to such extent. It was a one-time deal and can't be resurrected. Kavanuagh would have been squirming and stumbling if this had been structured properly. She should have opened by asking him how much time he spent on preparation for his testimony. He would no doubt have been proud to detail it. Get that in there to establish how important it was to him, that he didn't merely wing it upon sitting down. Then ask the gotcha question about watching Dr. Ford beforehand. You don't know what he'll say but just in case he offers the version a guilty person would offer...you've got him. From that point, lay it out similarly to how I did earlier...the contrasting ways an innocent party and guilty party logically would have dealt with preceding testimony.
It could have changed the way the day was remembered, IMO, and especially the latter half. Anyone who would place themselves in position of falsely accused of something so horrific from so long ago knows damn well they would have watched every second of that accuser, if in position to immediately follow them in testimony on the same stage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
