The viral highlight of Wednesday’s confirmation hearing was Senator Kamala Harris’ eight-minute interrogation of Judge Kavanaugh over whether he’d had a conversation with attorneys at Marc Kasowitz’s Law Firm about Robert Mueller’s investigation. Allahpundit wrote about it here. Since Kasowitz had been a lawyer for Trump, the insinuation being made by Sen. Harris was that Kavanaugh had some kind of back-alley meeting with someone at the firm to pass notes about the Mueller investigation.

Thursday, everyone was waiting for the big payoff which was sure to come. As Sen. Harris headed into the hearing, CNN’s Manu Raju asked her about the basis for her questions. What did she know? She replied, “I asked him a clear question and he couldn’t give a clear answer.”

Kamala Harris is expected to question Kavanaugh within next hour or so. She still hasn't explained basis of her questioning that Kavanaugh may have had a conversation with a Kasowitz attorney on Mueller probe. It's unclear if she'll bring it up again. Here's what she's said: pic.twitter.com/BYhBvxhHTE

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 6, 2018

Maybe the reason he couldn’t give a clear answer is that there are a few hundred people working at the law firm in question and Kavanaugh couldn’t recall, off the top of his head, who all of them were. But after all the anticipation, members of the resistance were waiting for the Perry Mason moment when Kavanaugh would suddenly be caught in a lie.

You’ll never guess what happened when Sen. Harris got her second bite at this apple during Thursday’s hearing. If you guessed nothing, collect your prize. Here’s the full exchange (video below):

Sen. Harris: I will ask you again, and for the last time. Yes or no. Have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm of Kasowicz, Benson, Torres about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation…and I ask were you ever part of a conversation. I’m not asking you what did you say. I’m asking you, were you a party to a conversation that occurred regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation and a simple yes or no would suffice.

Judge Kavanaugh: About his investigation? And are you referring to a specific person?

Harris: I’m referring to a specific subject and the specific person I’m referring to is you.

Kavanaugh: Who was the conversation with? You said you had information.

Harris: That is not the subject of the question, sir. The subject of the question is you and whether you were part of a conversation regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.

Kavanaugh: The answer is no.

Harris: Thank you. And it would have been great if you could have said that last night.

This should have been the moment for Sen. Harris to make a dramatic reveal about who Kavanaugh allegedly spoke and the proof she had that it happened. Instead, she dropped it and moved on to other things. Talk about an anti-climax. But wait! Maybe Sen. Harris is just waiting for the right moment to make an even more dramatic reveal. Only that’s not going to happen according to Sen. Harris’ spokeswoman. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Harris said she was just asking a question based on what she termed “reliable” information that Kavanaugh had talked with someone at the Trump-linked law firm. She did not identify her source or give any details of the tip.

“It wasn’t a trick question,” Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said. “His answer (Wednesday) night was entirely unclear, and it raised concerns by many people about whether this had happened.”

Adams said Harris does not plan on doing anything more with the information she said she received from her source.

First off, this absolutely was a trick question. The non-trick version of this question would be something like: ‘I’ve heard you spoke to person X about Muller’s investigation, is that true?’ All Harris had to do was offer up the name and this would have been much simpler. But she refused to do that. And because it was designed as a gotcha question, Kavanaugh treated it that way. But ultimately there was no gotcha.

This whole thing reminds me of Sen. Harry Reid’s claim during the 2012 campaign, that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for a decade. That had (allegedly) come to Reid from someone in a position to know. Reid later said he had no regrets about spreading this lie because it worked, i.e. Romney lost the election. Someone should ask Sen. Harris if she’s trying to follow in Reid’s footsteps.