I believe that's the intended effect. Sheer volume of misdirection, vague answers, and thinly veiled threats leaves people tired.
Anyone might reasonably not have the energy to keep picking apart the nonsense from long evasive answers.
Still, as pointed out in the email thread, a CA is also evaluated on how trustworthy they are in a broader sense than the baseline requirements.
Uncertainty and doubt is great at making people dizzy and muddying the waters, but compared to other CAs who respond with openness and transparency, the contrast is striking.
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
I was heartened by how many respondents were like, "yeah, even if the original concerns amount to nothing, the behavior here alone is enough to justify revocation, there's no place for that kind of evasiveness in this process"
