American Thinker:
By Robert Arvay
In a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris demonstrated a twofold ploy of dishonesty while attempting to trap Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett in a trick question. See if you can quickly pick out the two ploys in the following short video clip:
Barrett quickly caught the first ploy and responded masterfully. She responded that Harris had led with two easy questions THAT had obvious answers and then used them to falsely transition into a loaded question about climate change, which made the incorrect assumption that man-caused climate change is a settled fact. It was as incongruous as if Harris had asked, can you ride a horse? Can you ride a mule? Can you, therefore of course, fly a jet airplane?
The second blatant dishonesty from Harris was at the end of the clip, when she concluded that Barrett has made it clear that Barrett considers climate change a debatable issue. Here, when there was no time to clarify, Barrett might have otherwise been able to say, “No, that is not at all what I said. I did not say that I personally am decided, or undecided, about climate change. I said the public considers it controversial. What I said about my personal opinion is that I cannot publicly comment on whatever my opinion is until I am called upon to rule in a matter where that question would apply to a case before me.”
Such an answer would, in my view, have been consistent with Barrett’s other statements to the committee. Her responses to Harris also allow us to draw inferences as to Barrett’s thinking when it comes to issues of fraud in the election process.
I may be reading the tea leaves here, but see if you agree. more
Test
Hairas is a half wit trying to out do a full wit. Never going to happen.
There was literally nothing in that line questioning to infer about voter fraud. The writer of the article is clearly using click bait tactics on conservatives. He would have been just as close if he would have called the “Psychic Hotline” for his supposition. I do believe that ACB will vote correctly on the voter fraud issue if brought before the SC correctly and Sydney Powell is just the person to do it. (I want Sydney to replace Barr when this is over!!)
Camel-uh really enjoys being a C#NT.
What a vile and evil smirk she had at the end of her questioning.
The hint was judicial notice. And yes, it was potentially a very important clue as to what may happen in the next month when this all ultimately winds up in the Supreme Court.
@gee wally which tea laves are you reading, Lipton?
If harris doesn’t have an old, ugly cock in her mouth, she’s clueless.
Rush just said lifelong Bushy phony Perino said Dominion should sue Giuliani and the legal team and Trump.
What a globalist, never Trump tool.
^I meant to post that on the post about the press conference.
Tablet misbehaving.
Right about now, KaMalarkey should be having second thoughts about her dishonesty with Justice Kavanaugh.
Justice Barrett is not yer average bear…
I tried. I really did.
I just cannot look at that fraud.
That is all.
Bob is “wishin and hopin”!
She, like Barr and Roberts has a long association with the Bush/Obama team. Like Barr I think her loyalties are devided. Roberts is clearly in Joe’s camp!
If we have to count on her to be #5 in the conservative camp against Roberts I tremble. I would not be shocked if she said for the Court to not take any cases; siding with Roberts. NOt shocked if she said hear them; either.
She is not as liberal as Roberts; but not a solid conservative either.
The RomneyCare case will give us a clue. But it will not be public till next year.
Agreed, an ol exJarhead. A bunch of thumbs up. Since her nomination, I’ve been saying Barrett can’t be counted on to be another Scalia or Thomas. She has too much in common with Roberts and Kavanagh.