A (non)reaction problem: "testimony" by "Mellissa Carone"

This week saw some - in the words used a fair bit in the more rational and credible sections of the USA - "testimony" by someone named Mellissa Carone that was "lacking in credibility". Actually, I think the phrase was "utterly lacking in credibility". 

It did, indeed lack credibility, it harmed whatever #45 thought his team would do, and it was a waste of everyone's time.

The unfortunate Congressperson trying to deal with this infantile behaviour was generally praised - certainly in everything I've come across. Personally, I think he looked a bit like a stunned mullet - it was, after all, a bit like turning up to a launch of a Saturn rocket and having someone say "the flames won't hurt me - they're all fake", and then stand right underneath just before the engines ignite while everyone else is kilometres away. 

But the problem is, she is not alone. 

Based on what I have seen (which may not be complete), by trying to maintain the dignity of the occasion, the US Congressperson effectively allowed her wild claims and statements to be aired, without a two way communication. Many other people will see the obvious wrongness of what was said, but a small number will think she was doing something "good" - which is the sort of group who seem to support #45, but are possibly more reacting to long term frustrations (such as long term job losses and unemployment and poverty as a result of globalisation - which has unquestionably helped poor nations, just as it has harmed a much smaller number of people in richer nations - who wound up supporting #45 because his lies about caring for them were believed). 

It is important to remember that there is always, in this day and age, a broader audience. 

The sections of that broader audience who were inclined to see this "testimony" as standing up to a nameless group / organisation / thing, would have been forced to think again if they saw the witness failing to answer some basic checks - and that would be to all of society's benefit. 

As an example, when she claimed to have signed an affidavit, ask "Signed before who? It has no legal power unless it is signed before a lawful authority. Exactly what was stated in the affidavit - that you did shopping that week? Affidavits cover many matters - what did yours, madam?" 

When she said she had two degrees, "In what? Are those matters relevant to this? If you have degrees in geology that isn't much use in terms of what is being discussed here." 

Above all else, when she claimed to work for Dominion Voting Systems, get someone to check that immediately - go out of the room, get them to contact a senior person in that company and let them know how bad she is making them look, and ask if she does in fact work for them. 

If she doesn't, she has been shown to be a liar - and put at risk of defamation action from that company. 

Doing these sorts of things is not easy - it's why I've never pursued the law, and one of many reasons I've never sought political office. 

But it needs to be done - along with credible and effective civic education (over teachers' reluctance / obstruction / criticism if necessary) as mentioned in this - if we are going to start reversing the social decline that such behaviour exemplifies.