L.A. Times, S.F. Chronicle: Kamala Harris 'Failed Miserably' ...

[SVPete]

L.A. Times, S.F. Chronicle: Kamala Harris 'Failed Miserably' at Brett Kavanaugh Hearing

Harris questioned Kavanaugh about whether he had ever had a conversation with someone at a law firm founded by President Donald Trump’s former lawyer about the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Kavanaugh seemed not to know what she was talking about, and Harris hinted that she may have had evidence to back up her line of questioning. But in the end, the former California Attorney General came up with absolutely nothing.

The San Francisco Chronicle‘s Joe Garofoli and John Wildermuth were not impressed with Harris’s antics:

The biggest cliff-hanger question of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing was answered Thursday in a most anticlimactic way.
…
Harris, a former San Francisco district attorney, zeroed in on the biggest witness of her career — a person nominated for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. “Be sure about your answer, sir,” she told Kavanaugh, a hint that perhaps she had something more to say, depending on his reply.
…
When her turn came Thursday, it turned out Harris didn’t have the goods after all. After another couple of courtroom-style go-rounds between veteran lawyers, Kavanaugh issued a flat-out “no” to Harris’ yes-or-no question.

And that was it. Harris said she was just asking a question based on what she termed “reliable” information that Kavanaugh had talked with someone at the Trump-linked law firm. She did not identify her source or give any details of the tip.

The Los Angeles Times‘ Michael McGough agreed, arguing that Harris had “failed miserably” in questioning Kavanaugh (original link in text):

In full prosecutorial mode, Harris asked Kavanaugh:  “Have you discussed [Robert S.] Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer?” She added the portentous warning: “Be sure about your answer, sir.”

Like most people watching, I assumed Harris was about to confront Kavanaugh with evidence that there had been such a potentially problematic conversation, and name the lawyer with whom Kavanaugh supposedly communicated.

But there was no big reveal.
…
CNN quoted Harris as saying that “I have a good reason to believe there was a conversation” and that her question was based on “pretty reliable” evidence. Her grilling of Kavanaugh would have been more effective if she had provided it.

In fairness to Kammy, her F-up was not walking into the hearing and saying, "I got nothing." Because in the 9-10 months the Ds and their MSM-sock-puppets have known Kavanaugh was a possible USSC candidate and then became one, they came up with nothing. After failing to admit that when her turn to speak came, everything she said instead was just further demonstration of her stupidity.

Further, being MSM people, Grofoli & Wildermuth and McGough should have known Kammy had nothing and her whole stunt was empty grandstanding. So their criticism is as disingenuous as it is unfair.

[docstew]

I honestly don't know why they had to have these hearings, at least open-door.  When did that become a thing?  Because everyone knows that the vote will be along party lines, They could have very easily questioned him behind closed doors for a day, and held the Full Senate confirmation vote the next.


But on the flipside, I appreciate the commies taking every opportunity to show themselves to be obstructionist and unhinged.  It really shows their true values to middle America that they are attempting to destroy this man who loves God, his family, the US, baseball, mom and apple pie.  Many Americans are probably thinking "If they will try to wreck someone that clean over a disagreement, what could happen to me?"

[SVPete]

I think most such hearings have been open to the public, maybe since the late 18th Century. They became a Soap-Opera--Reality-TV hybrid some time in the Reagan Administration, possibly with the Borking of Robert Bork (1987).