Saturday, June 17, 2017

Trey Gowdy v Kamala Harris

What Harris is doing precedes her going back in our moment to for example the Bork hearings. That said, it's interesting to contrast Gowdy as a committee questioner with Harris, both former prosecutors. She's smart and tough with well thought out questions meant to make an ideological point. So is he. But I sense he was a better trial lawyer than she was including being a more adroit cross examiner. He's certainly more impressive than her in legislative oversight work. One reason why is that her impetuous questioning, not allowing time for an answer, asking open ended questions that need more than a yes or no, but interrupting the answer being given to the point of her being chastised and constrained, overwhelms signs of her skill. But Gowdy is patient, asks closed, thought out questions that yield only a yes or no, and goes on unruffled to make clear points and get clear concessions damaging to the side represented by the examinee. As I see this moment's legislators doing this kind of work, examining witnesses, Trey Gowdy stands out as the best. And mine is entirely a non ideological observation.

1 comment:

  1. I completely agree. She is attractive which makes the audience want to listen. She starts off as confident and capable. However, you soon realize Kamala seems to throw a wide rope at them, impatiently hoping to snag a limb. The impatience becomes obvious with each interruption and repeated question. Soon it just comes off as desperate and noisy. By the end of her wide rope volleys, there's just a lot of dust, and it dissapoints.

    Trey lays the snare down, then with each question-step, calmly walks them forward until they've firmly planted their foot in the middle of it. You're rivited with each question as you see his target knows there's danger but cannot avoid the innevitable snare. For example, his volume level doesn't change, yet each question seems louder. His questioning becomes more action packed the closer the target approaches the snare.

    Now, imagine you're a jury listening to her then him. She's buckshot. He's a sniper.