The format isn't great, it lends itself to grand standing and the reduction of nuanced situations into yes or no questions-- but even given that, she didn't get him on anything. She asserted what she thought he thought, then didn't let him answer.

She got everything out of order. It's like she was telling a joke and she lead with the punchline. If he's on the record saying he thought X was good, then ask him if he stands by that. Then bring up the genocide associated with X and ask him if despite the genocide he still stands by his positive assessment of X. This way you've made him pro genocide by his own words. What she did was just say that he's pro genocide.

Jack and Oscar, you guys seem confused about my critique. I'm not knocking her position-- I don't know enough about it. I'm saying that her tactics were rookie as fuck and shit like that doesn't convert anyone and possibly alienates moderates who just see this without the knowledge of the context.