Thank you for posting the full speech and providing context to this post.
I must admit that i only watched the clip and not the full speech, and i agree that the full speech would provide more context for a better interpretation of this clip.
However, in this clip she literally says " i LEARNED ... that with a swipe of MY pen ... i could charge someone [etc]", which i interpreted as an admission that she actually did that at least one time.
Saying that she learned that she could isn't an admission that she actually did it.
We do know that she did abuse her power (keeping prisoners in jail longer that they should have been to use for free labor, nearly allowing an innocent prisoner to be executed, etc), but she didn't admit to that in that speech.
Except that there IS evidence that she actually did....
Correct. That's why I wrote this:
We do know that she did abuse her power (keeping prisoners in jail longer that they should have been to use for free labor, nearly allowing an innocent prisoner to be executed, etc)
I'm just saying that her speech isn't an admission of her misconduct. Quite the opposite: it's a denial and projection.
Maybe I'm reading more into it than what's there, but I doubt that, and maybe she's Denying it a little too hard, or maybe even I'm reading it from the POV of ""When they deny, they affirm"" POV....
But I see what I see, and I don't see a Direct Open Admittance, but a Covert Admittance, like after someone sees you break a Window, and then a few weeks later you ask them HOW it got broken....
Thank you for posting the full speech and providing context to this post. I must admit that i only watched the clip and not the full speech, and i agree that the full speech would provide more context for a better interpretation of this clip.
However, in this clip she literally says " i LEARNED ... that with a swipe of MY pen ... i could charge someone [etc]", which i interpreted as an admission that she actually did that at least one time.
Saying that she learned that she could isn't an admission that she actually did it.
We do know that she did abuse her power (keeping prisoners in jail longer that they should have been to use for free labor, nearly allowing an innocent prisoner to be executed, etc), but she didn't admit to that in that speech.
I would love a body language expert on this, because while I know she wasn't admitting to abuse of power, she certainly seemed pleased with herself.
She looked like she was about to break out a dupers delight smile and cackle!
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-rampant-prosecutorial-abuses/
Except that there IS evidence that she actually did....
Correct. That's why I wrote this:
I'm just saying that her speech isn't an admission of her misconduct. Quite the opposite: it's a denial and projection.
Maybe I'm reading more into it than what's there, but I doubt that, and maybe she's Denying it a little too hard, or maybe even I'm reading it from the POV of ""When they deny, they affirm"" POV....
But I see what I see, and I don't see a Direct Open Admittance, but a Covert Admittance, like after someone sees you break a Window, and then a few weeks later you ask them HOW it got broken....