 |
| Jack Smith |
Republican members repeatedly lambasted Smith for allegedly “weaponizing” [their word] the Justice Department against President Donald Trump. Smith had led the investigations of Donald Trump’s participation in the January 6, 2021 riots at the United States Capitol and Trump’s presumably illegal possession of secret government documents at Mar a Lago. Powered by resentment of Smith’s hubris, but lacking any way to defend Trump, Republican senators devoted themselves to personal attacks against Smith and his methods.
When her turn arrived, Darline Graham, sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, questioned Smith’s use of a secret subpoena to seize telephone call records of certain Republican members of Congress. She made this powerful, emotional attack against Smith:
“You alleged to a federal judge that my brother Lindsey, a patriot who had dedicated over 30 years of his life wearing the uniform of his country in the United States Air Force, a sitting United States senator and a chairman of this very committee had the potential to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses, and cause serious jeopardy to your sham of an investigation.” [italics added]
A moment later, playing on her personal loss, Darline Graham accused Smith of besmirching her brother's reputation:
“So, Mr. Smith, do you really believe that Lindsey was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession?”
Darline Graham's clever phrasing seemingly posed Smith with a terrible dilemma: either accuse Lindsey Graham of vial behavior or admit that his subpoena was improper. Instead, Smith spoke slowly and carefully to turn Darline Graham’s emotional argument against her in a few short sentences:
“No. I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation. And in fact, he likely would've been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false. He said so on [inaudible]. He testified. …” [italics added]
That was Smith turning the tables. The idea of turning the tables is to show that your opponent’s argument actually supports your side.
Why did Smith’s argument carry so much power?
First, Smith echoed Darline Graham’s praise of her brother. She had called him “a patriot who had dedicated over 30 years of his life wearing the uniform of his country.” Would Smith dare to criticize a patriot? Of course not! Instead, Smith seized her exact language: “No. I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant.” Continuing, Smith said that Graham had discredited Donald Trump’s claims of election interference and that he would probably have been a witness in any criminal trial of Donald Trump. Smith insisted that Lindsey Graham, as a patriot, would place truth above the political party. That concise response turned Darline Graham’s point about patriotism completely against her. He also turned her question into an opportunity to state his concerns about Donald Trump. Brilliant!
Senator Graham
interrupted and moved to another “gotcha” question:
“Well, I have another question. Then why does the gag order say that disclosure of the subpoena would result in destruction of or tampering with evidence?”
 |
| Darline Graham |
“Because disclosure of that subpoena could result in Donald Trump attempting to intimidate witnesses as he had before and after. We had an ample basis for that …”
Smith did not finish his answer, for Graham hastily waved him to silence, but I think we already saw his point.
Later in his testimony, a Democratic Senator gave Smith the chance to explain at greater length that Donald Trump had been intimidating and threatening witnesses against him, which, Smith said, justified a degree of secrecy during the investigation.
Smith’s brief responses struck with rapier-like precision. Turning the Tables stands above all other debate techniques. Darline Graham could not deny that her brother had been a patriot, for she had said so herself! Smith noted that patriotism entailed loyalty to the country over party. He reminded everyone that honor means to speak the truth. Darline Graham was not foolish enough to deny it. The secrecy about which she had complained cast no aspersion against Lindsey Graham, as she alleged, but rather against Donald Trump. Her second question gave Smith the chance to add additional comments about Trump’s perfidy.
Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech Turned the Tables on the Slavers
By turning the tables against Darline Graham, by using her own arguments against her, Smith proved himself to be a masterful debater. He did it without screaming, shouting anyone down, or calling anyone names. He simply stuck to the facts and elevated the discourse to higher values. This left his interlocuter with no course except to continue rambling away in her dull, boring, and tedious – but now discredited – remarks.
The brilliance of turning the tables is that your opponent cannot deny your facts. Darline Graham provided the facts. All Smith needed to do was to point out what those facts really meant.
__________
Thanks to Rev.com, a commercial transcription service, for promptly providing a verbatim transcript of these important hearings.
No comments:
Post a Comment