Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
102 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Let's take a few moments to watch a maestro at the top of her game (Original Post) EffieBlack Sep 2018 OP
Oh my yes. Zoonart Sep 2018 #1
Kavanaugh appears to be lying his ass off. spanone Sep 2018 #2
He's stuck because he knows that, like any good lawyer, she already knows the answer to her question EffieBlack Sep 2018 #4
Agreed 100% spanone Sep 2018 #7
This is probably what she has on him. Wonder how she'll spring it. brush Sep 2018 #31
Watch his left hand as he grabs the notepad very hard Perseus Sep 2018 #13
I loved the reaction of the staffer bluescribbler Sep 2018 #27
Yes, that reaction of the staffer was priceless - looked like an embarrassed laugh Merlot Sep 2018 #38
Just before that he said that law firms HootieMcBoob Sep 2018 #68
She is amazing! mcar Sep 2018 #3
A maestro indeed! Love her! Docreed2003 Sep 2018 #5
So that law firm is the same one the Trump's lawyer is from? Is there proof Maraya1969 Sep 2018 #6
It's probably in the Committee Confidential documents EffieBlack Sep 2018 #8
Im guessing there is an email exchange green917 Sep 2018 #24
Oh she knows. And she has proof. pangaia Sep 2018 #11
I really like Senator Harris Gothmog Sep 2018 #9
Harris Booker 2020 djacq Sep 2018 #10
Amen🙌🙌 irisblue Sep 2018 #12
Good God yes flibbitygiblets Sep 2018 #21
Kamala Harris for Senate for the next 40 years Hekate Sep 2018 #28
that would be a dream come true JuJuYoshida Sep 2018 #39
I love her! She seems to be taking over from Al Franken . . . fleur-de-lisa Sep 2018 #14
Not IMO. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #64
Do all women have irritating voices, or just some? flibbitygiblets Sep 2018 #65
Oh snap !! Haggis for Breakfast Sep 2018 #71
And it's rich watching someone on a discussion board critique the cross-examination skills EffieBlack Sep 2018 #75
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And...she didn't get an answer, did she? Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #87
Oh, believe me, America saw him answer her question. Haggis for Breakfast Sep 2018 #96
Yes. It's on the internet, too. The tricky answer that she didn't catch. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #97
YOU are missing the POINT Haggis for Breakfast Sep 2018 #101
No, that's not the point. He got his slippery answer in, and she accepted it. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #102
I'm female. Snap!! nt Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #85
I wouldn't be patting myself on the back for being a woman, you're not exactly championing our cause flibbitygiblets Sep 2018 #93
I'm not championing any cause. I merely stated that I found someone's voice irritating. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #98
You'd best get used to hearing that voice BannonsLiver Sep 2018 #100
Her voice is irritating to me. Wow...I didn't know you cared that much about my opinions. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #84
You don't seem to know (or care) that you are contributing to dog-whistle sexism flibbitygiblets Sep 2018 #92
Thank you EffieBlack Sep 2018 #94
It doesn't help to treat certain people gingerly, like they can't handle the truth. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #99
Thank you, flibbitygiblets! Perfect response. fleur-de-lisa Sep 2018 #90
Did you read what you wrote before you hit "Post my reply?" EffieBlack Sep 2018 #74
Wow. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #78
I watched almost the entire thing live. pangaia Sep 2018 #15
Oh he crumbled under fire C_U_L8R Sep 2018 #16
wow jcgoldie Sep 2018 #17
She was a prosecutor and Deputy DA and DA with relatively high conviction rates. SpankMe Sep 2018 #18
The cons (republicons) lsewpershad Sep 2018 #19
She is fab amuse bouche Sep 2018 #20
"First of all, stop the clock". ROFL. flibbitygiblets Sep 2018 #22
Kamala Harris is Wonderful people Sep 2018 #23
She is awesome! DesertRat Sep 2018 #25
Squirmy worm, pants on fire. byronius Sep 2018 #26
I can't wait until Senator Harris releases the incriminating evidence she so obviously has. mulsh Sep 2018 #29
She can't release it until he lies about it. Merlot Sep 2018 #40
My God, she was amazing! llmart Sep 2018 #30
Sorry, I dont see whats so impressive. They're both just playing. 7962 Sep 2018 #32
No good prosecuter would give their evidence up Merlot Sep 2018 #42
She may only know that he had a meeting watoos Sep 2018 #43
Thats possible, but her demeanor seems to point to her having someone in mind 7962 Sep 2018 #49
She was the Attorney General in California lunatica Sep 2018 #45
Yes, you really don't see. She was CA's AG after she was Hortensis Sep 2018 #46
Yes, I know what her position was in CA. This isnt a trial though. Its a hearing. 7962 Sep 2018 #48
You have no idea whether she gets anything from it. Hortensis Sep 2018 #54
This stage of the hearing IS very much like a trial EffieBlack Sep 2018 #55
Yes. Nicely explained. Hortensis Sep 2018 #62
Of course we dont know. But I seriously doubt she was bluffing! 7962 Sep 2018 #61
specificity aids the target Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2018 #86
That's not how it's done. This isn't Perry Mason EffieBlack Sep 2018 #76
WOW! NurseJackie Sep 2018 #33
I sure hope whoever he has talked to about the Mueller investigation steps forward during the KPN Sep 2018 #34
I'm hoping NewJeffCT Sep 2018 #35
I am all in if she decides to run for President. nt LexVegas Sep 2018 #36
That twit Lee is ridiculous geardaddy Sep 2018 #37
That's probably why his staff behind him were laughing lunatica Sep 2018 #47
That was awesome! SharonAnn Sep 2018 #41
Smart lawyers never ask questions that they don't already know the answer to Brother Buzz Sep 2018 #44
from her wikipedia page lapfog_1 Sep 2018 #53
My magic 8 Ball looked into the future Brother Buzz Sep 2018 #58
What a shifty shit he is. Clearly he talked to drumph and others to make a deal. BSdetect Sep 2018 #50
A thing of beauty. sheshe2 Sep 2018 #51
Wooop! Anon-C Sep 2018 #52
K&R Scurrilous Sep 2018 #56
He's not only faking forgetfulness, but faking sincerity in his faked recollection too. yonder Sep 2018 #57
So awesome! Like a surgeon with a scalpel, such precision. R B Garr Sep 2018 #59
I had reservations yesterday, but now that I more fully understand AndJusticeForSome Sep 2018 #60
Good info & questions & intel (however she found out). But she could've done better, IMO. Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #63
K&R ismnotwasm Sep 2018 #66
His brain screeched to a sudden halt. George II Sep 2018 #67
lol! Yes, he can't gish gallop like Cha Sep 2018 #83
She is at the top of my list at this point. pnwmom Sep 2018 #69
Boy did she rattle his clock bucolic_frolic Sep 2018 #70
Awesome. dalton99a Sep 2018 #72
SHE IS FANTASTIC !!!! trueblue2007 Sep 2018 #73
She's fabulous. Power 2 the People Sep 2018 #77
My Qs for him: Did you talk to any one who you understood to be a member of the Kasowitz firm? SunSeeker Sep 2018 #79
General question followed by a general answer Az_lefty Sep 2018 #80
She accomplished plenty EffieBlack Sep 2018 #89
Presidential Material Roy Rolling Sep 2018 #81
She'll make a fine presidential candidate. joshcryer Sep 2018 #82
She is number one on my list sellitman Sep 2018 #88
Really wanted to hear her ask him, "If you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple "yes/no" Rabrrrrrr Sep 2018 #91
Lol EffieBlack Sep 2018 #95
 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
4. He's stuck because he knows that, like any good lawyer, she already knows the answer to her question
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 08:22 AM
Sep 2018

And if he answers honestly, he's screwed - it means he's corrupt at worst and, at best, must recuse himself from considering any cases related to Trump or the Mueller probe.

And if he lies, Sen. Harris will know it - and every other senator with access to the "Committee Confidential" documents containing the answer will know it, too. And, even in this up-is-doen world, if Kavanaugh is busted lying under oath about discussing the Mueller case with Trump's lawyers, he'll not only not get on the Supreme Court, he could get impeached and removed from his current job.

So we just got the deer-in-the-headlights "Who, me?" look.

 

Perseus

(4,341 posts)
13. Watch his left hand as he grabs the notepad very hard
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:19 AM
Sep 2018

while Harris is asking the question.

What a bunch of bull that he has to know who works there, the name of the firm suffices.

And this guy Lee, what a moron...law firms are everywhere, lots of people work at law firms, blah, blah blah...he must be in the same fifth grade as the man-child.

bluescribbler

(2,264 posts)
27. I loved the reaction of the staffer
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:20 AM
Sep 2018

When Sen. Lee compared law firms to rabbits. The man behind him had to cover his face. He was either trying not to laugh, or was embarrassed by the comparison.

HootieMcBoob

(3,826 posts)
68. Just before that he said that law firms
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 07:46 PM
Sep 2018

In Washington DC “metastasize”. He’s basically saying that they’re a cancer on the capital. 😆

Maraya1969

(23,013 posts)
6. So that law firm is the same one the Trump's lawyer is from? Is there proof
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 08:39 AM
Sep 2018

that he spoke with Trump's lawyer?

How can Kamala Harris prove that he is lying here?

green917

(442 posts)
24. Im guessing there is an email exchange
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:06 AM
Sep 2018

Im guessing there is an email exchange either setting up a meeting or discussing the meeting after the fact. Im guessing Kasowitz' legal assistant probably contacted him (Kavanaugh).

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
11. Oh she knows. And she has proof.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:15 AM
Sep 2018

otherewise she would not have asked the question.

And KKK KNOWS she knows.. and that she knows he knows she knows he is lying. In fact the entire committee knows he is lying.

fleur-de-lisa

(14,669 posts)
14. I love her! She seems to be taking over from Al Franken . . .
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:22 AM
Sep 2018

Kicking ass and taking names!

She is currently my top candidate for our presidential nominee in 2020. She is pushing all my buttons:

1. FEMALE
2. MIXED RACIAL BACKGROUND (mother is from India, father is from Jamaica)
3. SMART AS HELL
4. ASS-KICKER EXTRAORDINAIRE
5. YOUNG-ISH (she is only 53)
6. SERVED AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CALIFORNIA
7. HAS A REPUTATION FOR PROSECUTING HATE CRIMES AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
64. Not IMO.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 06:10 PM
Sep 2018

She got a tip, and that's good. She asked questions that were pointed. She's a former prosecutor, so she would be good at that, and she was. Could she have done better? I think so. She talked too much with him, instead of repeating her question and asking him to answer.

But Franken would, IMO, have done better. It's partly the voice. Harris has a weak voice, while Franken's voice is pleasant, low, and makes points very well. Harris' voice is irritating to me. The voice is important.

flibbitygiblets

(7,220 posts)
65. Do all women have irritating voices, or just some?
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 06:50 PM
Sep 2018

I've motherfucking HAD IT with this "she's got an irritating voice" bullshit.

Women typically have higher voices than men. Try to deal, OK?

Haggis for Breakfast

(6,831 posts)
71. Oh snap !!
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:18 PM
Sep 2018

I think you struck a nerve there. I am also tired of men complaining about women being strident or aggressive.

She asked him a very direct question and he squirmed like a five year old with a full bladder. I'll bet this guy does NOT play poker.

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
75. And it's rich watching someone on a discussion board critique the cross-examination skills
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:24 PM
Sep 2018

of one of the best attorneys in the country ...

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
87. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And...she didn't get an answer, did she?
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 01:50 AM
Sep 2018

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2018, 02:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Because she didn't insist, IMO. Well, he answered something like, "I didn't have any inappropriate discussions about the Mueller investigation with anyone...." She didn't pick up on that word "inappropriate." That made the answer a non-answer. Because he could have had discussions, but in his view, they were not inappropriate.

And because she didn't get an answer, Orin Hatch or someone misrepresented, the next day, Kavanaugh's non-answer, by saying that he had said he hadn't had any conversations about it, but that's not what Kavanaugh had said.

I find her voice irritating. If I do...then others do. You'll have to deal with it. It's a fact. I can't help it. Some things are irritating to some people. Like you get irritated when people criticize Harris. It happens.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
97. Yes. It's on the internet, too. The tricky answer that she didn't catch.
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:03 PM
Sep 2018

It has a loophole in it. "I did not have any inappropriate discussions...." He did not say he didn't have any discussions.

Then Hatch said next day at the hearing that Kavanaugh had said he hadn't had any discussions about Mueller w/anyone at that firm, etc. He misrepresented what had been said, and as far as I know, no one caught that, either.

If Harris has proof of a conversation Kavanaugh had, that does not mean perjury. He never said he didn't have any discussions w/someone at that firm about Mueller.

Haggis for Breakfast

(6,831 posts)
101. YOU are missing the POINT
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:21 PM
Sep 2018

He squirmed, he stammered, he obfuscated, his eyes darted all over, his left hand grabbed that tablet of paper like it was a life preserver and he was on the deck of the Titanic. For a man who had sat for days, remembering minute details from meetings, rulings, court opinions decades old, he suddenly developed autogenic amnesia ?????

As someone who has spent a life time reading body language for a living, I will say again: America saw him answer her question. Turn off the audio and just watch him respond. His answer is all over him.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
102. No, that's not the point. He got his slippery answer in, and she accepted it.
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:24 PM
Sep 2018

And Hatch portrayed it as something other than it was...and to my knowledge, she has not corrected that misrepresentation.

So the country THINKS he answered the question, when he didn't, really. The Hatch version has obviously taken hold.

If she has proof of a conversation, there is no perjury. Because he never even said whether or not he'd had a conversation w/someone from that firm about Mueller.

But having said that, he sure looked uncomfortable with the question (very telling!), and tried not to have to answer, or answer or a more limited question. So yeah...sure looked like he probably had a conversation w/someone at that firm about the Mueller investigation (of COURSE he did! That's Trump's lawyer's firm.) That's why Hatch tried to "clarify" and misrepresent his testimony the next day.

But it would be more meaningful if he had actually answered the question she posed. The closest he got was his first answer, "I'm not remembering." I guess I did not see what you saw. I saw some competent questioning, but not a blaze of glory.

I did think Cory Booker's moment was pretty good. Noteworthy.

I don't know much about either of them. I have nothing against either of them. But Booker did catch my attention as someone who bested a situation that was potentially not good, and he did release those documents. That was noteworthy and bold, IMO. They both did a great job.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
98. I'm not championing any cause. I merely stated that I found someone's voice irritating.
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:05 PM
Sep 2018

Such a fuss over finding someone's voice irritating.

Hillary's voice is lovely. Dennis Kucinich's voice was squeaky.

It's not the gender. It's the voice.

BannonsLiver

(18,086 posts)
100. You'd best get used to hearing that voice
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:11 PM
Sep 2018

I don’t think it’s going anywhere anytime soon, in fact quite the opposite.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
84. Her voice is irritating to me. Wow...I didn't know you cared that much about my opinions.
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 01:46 AM
Sep 2018

My every opinion upsets you that much? I must love everything about someone you love, or it ruins your day?

I find her voice irritating. Deal with it.

It's not because she's female. I'M female, after all. I don't find Hillary's voice irritating. No...Harris just has an irritating voice, to me.

I heard her on a podcast the other day, but didn't know it was her. As soon as I heard the person speak, I thought "What an irritating voice, whoever that is."

flibbitygiblets

(7,220 posts)
92. You don't seem to know (or care) that you are contributing to dog-whistle sexism
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 09:59 AM
Sep 2018

Every time someone (male or female) says something like "she has an irritating voice", or "she's hysterical" or any other statement that points out the simple "female-ness" of a woman and compares it to how much better the "male-ness" is of a man, it is (intentionally or not) signaling that it's still...in 2018(!)...okay to marginalize and discriminate against women for things they can't change, such as their voice or the fact that they pee sitting down. You just joined team Trump and his misogynistic views, did you realize that?

Your comment is the gender equivalent of black stereotypes that I'd assumed we all agreed are WRONG and DAMAGING, so we DON"T ENGAGE IN THEM, not only because it's simply fucked up, but also because it signals to others that it's acceptable to do so.

I don't give a damn about your personal opinion. My beef isn't about your thoughts on Harris as a political figure; think whatever the hell you want. But PLEASE stop giving men (and women who are happy to live in 1950's America cuz' the men-folk are better at running things, you know!) your approval to judge women based on something they have no control over.


A man would do a better job because he has a low, calm voice? OMFG, are you serious??? We are better than this. We NEED to be better than this or women will continue to be denigrated for simply being women. Any lights going on now???

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
99. It doesn't help to treat certain people gingerly, like they can't handle the truth.
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 03:08 PM
Sep 2018

Get a grip. Someone just made a comment that they found someone's voice irritating. My, such a fuss over nothing.

Dennis Kucinich's voice was squeaky. Hillary's voice is lovely. It has nothing to do with gender or race or height or weight or anything superficial.

I find her voice irritating. I'm sure some others do, too. I'm sure others don't. I can't help it. I do. It's just one of those things. Get a grip.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
15. I watched almost the entire thing live.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:23 AM
Sep 2018

This excerpt has only a small part of it, and maybe the BEST PART !!!!!!




It was a thing of beauty.

The guy suddenly got constipated, flushed red, stammered, uh uh uh....

He's lying, she knows he is lying. He knows she knows he is lying.. The entire committee knows he is lying...What a stupid, sick fuck..

Actually, republicans are sick fucks.. every one of them for doing nothing..

SpankMe

(3,272 posts)
18. She was a prosecutor and Deputy DA and DA with relatively high conviction rates.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:30 AM
Sep 2018

You could almost hear Kavanaugh sweat. It almost made noise in the microphone as it dripped down.

lsewpershad

(2,620 posts)
19. The cons (republicons)
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 09:32 AM
Sep 2018

are playing fast and loose with peoples lives covering up for the clown on charge.
Cavanaugh should not be confirmed.

people

(701 posts)
23. Kamala Harris is Wonderful
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:03 AM
Sep 2018

She is the greatest. She is smart, moral, brave, kind and the force of her words comes from the fact that she absolutely means what she says. She does not do BS. I waited all day to see her take on this piece of . . . . His face got so red when she was asking him if he ever spoke to anyone at the Kasowitz law firm about the Mueller investigation. That he asked her for the names of who was in that law firm instead of simply saying yes or no or I don't remember if I did gave it all away. Kamala was and is a master - SHE WAS and IS FABULOUS

byronius

(7,620 posts)
26. Squirmy worm, pants on fire.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:10 AM
Sep 2018

He's clearly strategized and discussed how to thwart Robert Mueller with many toadies from many parts of the conspiracy.

That was so revealing. Thank you Senator Harris.

Proud to have voted for you.

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
40. She can't release it until he lies about it.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:06 AM
Sep 2018

"Think about your answer" her way of telling him (and everyone) that she does indeed have the evidene.

llmart

(16,331 posts)
30. My God, she was amazing!
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:33 AM
Sep 2018

If that lying weasel had to take a lie detector test, the machine would blow up.

She had him sweating and he knows he's lying. Why am I not surprised that he was the appointed one by the GOP? They're all a bunch of crooks, criminals and liars, especially the liar-in-chief.

How many times did he say "I'm not remembering"? Boy, if he has such an awful memory maybe that should disqualify him.

This is sickening. However, her political career can go nowhere but up from here. She's amazing and I'd vote for her for President any day.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
32. Sorry, I dont see whats so impressive. They're both just playing.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:47 AM
Sep 2018

For Gods sake, just ask him "did you speak with Joe Blow, of the firm X, about the investigation?" Obviously she has a specific person in mind, just SAY IT.
He asked "who are you talking about?"
Why not just give the name? Then he's totally on the hook if he lies. He would HAVE to admit it or go with the standard "I dont recall".

Just another part of the show, thats all. Everyone wants their clips. Sorry, I know most of you guys think the opposite.

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
42. No good prosecuter would give their evidence up
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:09 AM
Sep 2018

and "I don't recall" is every republicans fallback line. She didn't give him the chance to use it.

 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
43. She may only know that he had a meeting
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:12 AM
Sep 2018

at that law firm and she may not know who specifically. Your use of the word playing truly diminishes the importance of her question.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
49. Thats possible, but her demeanor seems to point to her having someone in mind
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:36 AM
Sep 2018

Like she said HE did, but was afraid to mention

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
45. She was the Attorney General in California
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:23 AM
Sep 2018

As a successful prosecutor she knows what she’s doing. How he looks, or prevaricated, squirms or responds to her direct question is probably what she wants to expose. The impression we, as audience, have now is that he was hiding something important that might be either very embarrassing or damning, or perhaps even illegal. Or all three. He could have just lied, but he probably felt she had proof to show he did discuss Mueller. So he prevaricated.

She has him off balance and it’s easy to see that he’s lying and hedging and playing dumb and probably hiding something. In other words he is being dishonest. It’s a strategic move on her part and serves to inject doubt regarding his honesty.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
46. Yes, you really don't see. She was CA's AG after she was
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:26 AM
Sep 2018

a CA prosecutor, you know. She operates at a far higher level of competence than the average person is capable of, and for some even capable of understanding exists. Serious people are watching this carefully, though, and some are commenting on it. Maybe look for discussion on legal blogs of the techniques she's using.

How this will work out, can't say. We can be sure she's handling what she has to work with skillfully, though.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
48. Yes, I know what her position was in CA. This isnt a trial though. Its a hearing.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:34 AM
Sep 2018

When it was all over with, if you saw more than this clip, she just moved on to a different question. Nothing comes of it. She gets her YouTube worthy clip and nothing happens to Kavanaugh. If she was trying to bust him on something, then DO IT. Stick the name out there and let him deny it & then show your proof that hes a liar.
Like people always say, when they ask you a question, they already know the answer, so just get on with it.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
54. You have no idea whether she gets anything from it.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:52 AM
Sep 2018

Don't you understand that? You don't know. I don't know. No. One. Here. Knows. The media don't know. Laurence Tribe, for god's sake, doesn't know yet.

I'm wondering, for instance, if she might just have been setting another brick in a foundation they're all creating to base a demand on, after confirmation, that he recuse himself from all cases related to Trump.

But that's just speculation. I really hope, of course, that they have wood and they're laying it now to end Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing in immolation, unlikely as that may seem.

But I will watch to find out because I know at least that I don't know.

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
55. This stage of the hearing IS very much like a trial
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:59 AM
Sep 2018

You're right - as in a trial, the most important thing to do is get him on the record under oath. This can be used later - either in the floor vote to get other Senators to switch their vote, later on when trying to pressure him to recuse, or even in an impeachment at a later time.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
62. Yes. Nicely explained.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 04:09 PM
Sep 2018

I'm aggravated at the moment thinking of those who always complain that those who rise to party leadership don't speak out and take action.

By definition they missed completely what can be done with limited power. They'll see big action they can't miss after they first take it themselves by voting power to our senators and congressmen, when they vote to give Democrats the majority and the gavel.


 

7962

(11,841 posts)
61. Of course we dont know. But I seriously doubt she was bluffing!
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 03:43 PM
Sep 2018

It was too specific. It just needed to be a tad MORE specific for me. He even asked who she was talking about. Why not give him the rope?

Hermit-The-Prog

(36,599 posts)
86. specificity aids the target
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 01:47 AM
Sep 2018

She's the one with skill and experience, but my guess is that she did not want to help the gang behind Kavanaugh in their quest to make him appear normal. They have to keep scrambling and he has to keep squirming, wondering what she's going to bring up next.

If he falls into a siege mentality, this sham can unravel. He may now be trying to concentrate on who, who, who, instead of questions at hand. This makes it more likely for him to stumble. And he can't get her questioning out of his head.

The jury (the general public) sees him rattled.

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
76. That's not how it's done. This isn't Perry Mason
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:25 PM
Sep 2018

It didn't matter who it was. The point was that she let him know she knew he had a conversation. And the fewer details he had at that point the better. All he needed to do was tell the truth, which he obviously couldn't do.

KPN

(16,136 posts)
34. I sure hope whoever he has talked to about the Mueller investigation steps forward during the
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 10:58 AM
Sep 2018

remainder of this hearing. Kamala is more than sharp. She laid down a land mine that Kavanaugh was totally unable to step around.

geardaddy

(25,360 posts)
37. That twit Lee is ridiculous
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:02 AM
Sep 2018

"This town is full of law firms and they're full of people."

What an absolute fuckhead. That was a sad mansplain.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
47. That's probably why his staff behind him were laughing
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:29 AM
Sep 2018

It was an obvious desperate attempt to cover for Kavanaugh playing “I’m too stupid to understand your question, Ma’am”

Brother Buzz

(37,924 posts)
44. Smart lawyers never ask questions that they don't already know the answer to
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:16 AM
Sep 2018

Kamala Harris is one smart cookie

lapfog_1

(30,220 posts)
53. from her wikipedia page
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 11:52 AM
Sep 2018

Harris worked in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and City Attorney's Office. In 2004, Harris was elected District Attorney of San Francisco. Harris was elected California's Attorney General in 2010 and reelected in 2014.

Brother Buzz

(37,924 posts)
58. My magic 8 Ball looked into the future
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:27 PM
Sep 2018

Harris worked in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and City Attorney's Office. In 2004, Harris was elected District Attorney of San Francisco. Harris was elected California's Attorney General in 2010 and reelected in 2014. US Senator from California from 2017 to 2021. Appointed Attorney General of the United States in 2021.

yonder

(10,005 posts)
57. He's not only faking forgetfulness, but faking sincerity in his faked recollection too.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:13 PM
Sep 2018

All over his face, IMO. As the person who appointed him would say: a fake.
Thanks for this thread.

"Harris/Booker for the Future"

R B Garr

(17,384 posts)
59. So awesome! Like a surgeon with a scalpel, such precision.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 12:55 PM
Sep 2018

She is formidable. This is one for the ages. History is made!

AndJusticeForSome

(537 posts)
60. I had reservations yesterday, but now that I more fully understand
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 03:32 PM
Sep 2018

what her constraints were, take them all back!

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
63. Good info & questions & intel (however she found out). But she could've done better, IMO.
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 06:08 PM
Sep 2018

Been more pointed in simply saying, "Are you refusing to answer?" and "That's a yes or nor, Mr. Kavanaugh." "So, are you refusing to answer the question?" "I repeat, are you refusing to answer the question?"

bucolic_frolic

(47,171 posts)
70. Boy did she rattle his clock
Thu Sep 6, 2018, 08:09 PM
Sep 2018

He tried not to remember, he hedged, he tried to buy time ... the fact that he didn't mention anyone there, and he surely would know some of the principles, indicates he just dodged the question

SunSeeker

(53,826 posts)
79. My Qs for him: Did you talk to any one who you understood to be a member of the Kasowitz firm?
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 12:28 AM
Sep 2018

It is a simple yes or no question.

What? You don't remember?

How could you forget something like that? You can't remember talking with Trump's lawyers about the Mueller investigation? Really? It had to have only happened sometime in the last 12 months. This is not ancient history.

Do you take mind altering substances?

Az_lefty

(3,670 posts)
80. General question followed by a general answer
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 12:46 AM
Sep 2018

She accomplished nothing. If she could have nailed him down with a particular person that would have meant everything. He has to be caught in a lie for this to matter. Judging by his body language that could still happen (hope it does) but not with this

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
89. She accomplished plenty
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 07:28 AM
Sep 2018

Contrary to popular belief, effective cross-examination is not intended, rarely does, nor should it produce Perry Mason moments. The point is to get certain things in the record without showing to much of your hand so that you can use the information later.

If she had asked him about something specific, he could have squirmed out of it. But by asking him a broader question, she got him on record about a broad range of things that will come back later. And it's possible she doesn't know exactly who he talked to but he's left to wonder what she knows.

While it's easy to second-guess, I am pretty sure that Kamala Harris knows far more about what she's doing than you or I do. And given her experience and savvy, I suspect she knows just what she's doing.

Roy Rolling

(7,183 posts)
81. Presidential Material
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 12:53 AM
Sep 2018

I wasn't paying attention before, but she sure has my attention now.

Whether she can win and a million other considerations I don't care. Her victory over this corrupt process proves she can stand toe-to-toe with the Putins of the world, and his American comrades in the GOP political cult.

Rabrrrrrr

(58,371 posts)
91. Really wanted to hear her ask him, "If you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple "yes/no"
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 08:02 AM
Sep 2018

question like 'Did you talk to someone at this law firm?', how could we possibly trust you to have the mental capacity to deal with the difficult and nuanced questions that a Supreme Court Justice faces? This question is no more difficult than asking, 'Did you have a tuna sandwich for lunch today?' Either you did or you didn't. There is no gray area here you obfuscating ignorant turdnugget. If the next word out of your mouth is anything other than 'yes' or 'no', I will empty my nose on your shitty tie. Now answer the fucking question!"



 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
95. Lol
Fri Sep 7, 2018, 10:18 AM
Sep 2018

The good thing is that she didn't need to say it. She just set the trap and now half of the people watching are asking the question without her having to say a thing.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's take a few moments ...