Agree.
No doubt ACB was entirely prepared for an extensive examination of her credentials; however, she was not in a position to assume the Chair's duty to manage the hearing.
That duty to manage would have included immediately forcing and finishing such a Kavanaugh-like issue or, at a minimum, knocking the Dem game plan off schedule.
Failing in that duty, as I proposed last evening elsewhere on these pages the following response might have been entirely appropriate and within the realm of Barrett's role.
"I will answer your question, senator, in two parts. The first part, is no. The second part is, you most likely would not ask such an offensive question unless you had evidence of such action on my part, so if you do I suggest you have an obligation to this committee, to the nation as a whole, to my children sitting behind me, and to me, to disclose any such evidence, here, now."
The Chair should appreciate such a response.
You wrote:
“I will answer your question, senator, in two parts. The first part, is no. The second part is, you most likely would not ask such an offensive question unless you had evidence of such action on my part, so if you do I suggest you have an obligation to this committee, to the nation as a whole, to my children sitting behind me, and to me, to disclose any such evidence, here, now.”
Very bad advice for anyone who, in this day of false “recovered memories” might find himself/herself under interrogation. First of all, never ever elaborate, “no” or “yes” is enough.
And for heaven’s sake, don’t ever use such a word as “evidence.” That will be twisted to mean you know you have done such a thing and know/suspect there evidence you did so. Say “allegation” if feel you must elaborate which, again, is a very foolish thing to do. Don’t give them anything they can twist and use against you. Don’t give them an opening to start a new line of questioning.
This is how innocent people, trying to clear their names, get into a lot of trouble. There already is a presumption of guilt by the interrogator, and there is nothing you can say or do to make it better but you can easily make it a whole lot worse!
You wrote:
“I will answer your question, senator, in two parts. The first part, is no. The second part is, you most likely would not ask such an offensive question unless you had evidence of such action on my part, so if you do I suggest you have an obligation to this committee, to the nation as a whole, to my children sitting behind me, and to me, to disclose any such evidence, here, now.”
Very bad advice for anyone who, in this day of false “recovered memories” might find himself/herself under interrogation. First of all, never ever elaborate, “no” or “yes” is enough.
And for heaven’s sake, don’t ever use such a word as “evidence.” That will be twisted to mean you know you have done such a thing and know/suspect there evidence you did so. Say “allegation” if feel you must elaborate which, again, is a very foolish thing to do. Don’t give them anything they can twist and use against you. Don’t give them an opening to start a new line of questioning.
This is how innocent people, trying to clear their names, get into a lot of trouble. There already is a presumption of guilt by the interrogator, and there is nothing you can say or do to make it better but you can easily make it a whole lot worse!