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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Let's take a few moments to watch a maestro at the top of her game [View all]lunatica
(53,410 posts)45. She was the Attorney General in California
As a successful prosecutor she knows what shes 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 its easy to see that hes lying and hedging and playing dumb and probably hiding something. In other words he is being dishonest. Its a strategic move on her part and serves to inject doubt regarding his honesty.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
102 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Let's take a few moments to watch a maestro at the top of her game [View all]
EffieBlack
Sep 2018
OP
He's stuck because he knows that, like any good lawyer, she already knows the answer to her question
EffieBlack
Sep 2018
#4
Yes, that reaction of the staffer was priceless - looked like an embarrassed laugh
Merlot
Sep 2018
#38
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
No, that's not the point. He got his slippery answer in, and she accepted it.
Honeycombe8
Sep 2018
#102
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
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
It doesn't help to treat certain people gingerly, like they can't handle the truth.
Honeycombe8
Sep 2018
#99
She was a prosecutor and Deputy DA and DA with relatively high conviction rates.
SpankMe
Sep 2018
#18
I can't wait until Senator Harris releases the incriminating evidence she so obviously has.
mulsh
Sep 2018
#29
I sure hope whoever he has talked to about the Mueller investigation steps forward during the
KPN
Sep 2018
#34
Smart lawyers never ask questions that they don't already know the answer to
Brother Buzz
Sep 2018
#44
What a shifty shit he is. Clearly he talked to drumph and others to make a deal.
BSdetect
Sep 2018
#50
He's not only faking forgetfulness, but faking sincerity in his faked recollection too.
yonder
Sep 2018
#57
Good info & questions & intel (however she found out). But she could've done better, IMO.
Honeycombe8
Sep 2018
#63
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