'Supreme Fiasco: Did the Kavanaugh Drama Just Break the Senate?
SCOTUS watchers weigh in on Thursday’s Capitol Hill fireworks'
A credible witness maintains the same demeanor during direct and cross examination. Under questioning from sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, the designated voice of the Republican senators, Ford remained calm and seemed genuinely to try to be as cooperative as possible. At one point she even told Mitchell she had asked an “excellent question.” ....
When Ford was addressed by the Democrats, who overwhelmingly chose to use their five minutes by lavishing her with praise, the only change in her expression was to blanch occasionally, as if she was embarrassed. At times, she leaned away from the microphone, as if to place a distance between herself and these over-eager compliment-dispensers. That is what a credible witness does—put distance between herself and the home team while taking great care to be respectful and responsive to her inquisitor.
^A witness who is not credible lashes out at his accusers and assumes a more reasonable demeanor under neutral questioning. That is exactly what we saw with Kavanaugh.
While a falsely accused man has every right to be angry, Kavanaugh’s rage—whether he is innocent or not—played poorly in large part because it was infected with self-pity and devoid of insight. It also played out selectively. With Mitchell, and later with the Republicans who took over the questioning, Kavanaugh was calm and answered directly. When it was the Democrats’ turn, Kavanaugh was rude, sneering and combative.^
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/28/supreme-fiasco-did-the-kavanaugh-drama-just-break-the-senate-220741