So Rep. Greene said that she didn’t recall advocating that President Trump put martial law into effect. The lawyer questioning her said stuff like “You’re not denying it, you’re saying that you don’t recall advocating martial law?” and she said Yes, I don’t remember.
The TV coverage cut away at this point, so maybe this went on, but assuming it didn’t go on in this vein, I’m wondering why not. It seems to me that a logical followup would have been to narrow down exactly when she didn’t advocate martial law. “Okay, you don’t recall calling for martial law in January of 2021, but do you recall speaking to anyone about it later in 2021?” and then “OK, you don’t remember saying it in 2021, but how about this year?” leading up to “Do you remember speaking about it today? In this conversation?”
My point is that by trying to pin down how recently she might or might not have advocated martial law (the kind of thing that’s kind of memorable), the lawyer could have established more firmly 1)that her “I don’t recall”s were simply evasions, not genuine memory lapses (though again, if I had ever advocated martial law, I damn sure would remember the occasion) OR 2) establish that she had such severe memory-loss problems, as not remembering whether she’d called for martial law this week would demonstrate, that she was useless as a witness.
In other words, why not try to pin her down as to the extent of her memory problems? I suspect that maybe the judge wouldn’t have allowed it? “Asked and answered”? I can see that, but I can also see that not remembering from a year ago is vastly different from not remembering what she said or felt or thought this week or this month. Or is there another reason the lawyer didn’t press harder on the question of her “I don’t recall”s?
“I don’t recall” is a standard ploy for dodging questions where answering with the truth proves your opponent’s case and stating an untruth can be refuted with other evidence and opens one to penalties of perjury. I see it frequently in the pretrial depositions I proofread. The questioning attorney can keep reformulating the question to try to dig out some kind of substantive reply, but it’s usually futile with a well-coached witness.
I saw a bit of the MTG examination and dearly wished someone could have wiped that smug smirk off her face.
But none of this so far really addresses my question: Why didn’t the lawyer pursue the question further to narrow down the extent of MTG’s inability to recall if she had spoken about martial law increasingly close to today?
This seems a kind of obvious course to pursue if you can elicit from her an admission that she can remember not advocating martial law today, but not yesterday, then you’ve exposed her either as a liar (because who can’t remember discussing a major serious subject yesterday?) or as a mental defective (whose memory is much much worse than a normal person’s).
Do lawyers not pursue such courses because judges don’t look kindly on them? Or because this judge in particular had instructed him to move along with his questioning? Or because he thought the point had been made sufficiently (my issues with it notwithstanding)?
I mean in your own summation you say that the coverage cut away, so it sounds like you should probably acquire a transcript or the full coverage before assuming the lawyer didn’t continue with that line of questioning. But there is a legal principle in most forms of hearing that you can’t just ask the same question over and over again, eventually you have to move on. Functionally speaking in a situation where someone is just going to say they don’t remember because they don’t want to cop to anything incriminating, there isn’t a lot you’re going to gain by making that obvious 10 times versus 5 times. You’ve gotten your point on the record.
Well, I think (I’m pretty sure) that would have made the news if he could have pinned down when she did and when she didn’t remember advocating martial law.
What I’m asking is: it’s not the same question over and over again, is it? If the attorney asks, “Do you not recall discussing martial law last year?” and then asks, “Do you not recall discussing it this week?” that’s not really asking the same question.
They aren’t the same question and there can be a reason to ask some variations on the theme, but this is an administrative type hearing before a State judge, whose decision ultimately gets referred to the (elected) Secretary of State whose decision could then be challenged again in court. I’m not convinced that the sequence of events you described as being televised materially change the outcome just because a lawyer continued asking more variations on that same question. There’s a value in asking enough variations on that question to make it somewhat obvious MTG is probably lying, but past that you’re just hoping the judge sides with you which probably isn’t changed because you asked 12 variations of the “do you remember” versus 6.
That’s my point. I don’t believe he asked her ANY variations on the question, just “Did you advocate martial law?” without ever pinning her down on a distinction about the time involved.
There are many points of strategy that could be at play here. AIUI they’ve got her stone cold on the point because they have her text message.
So putting the question to her is probably not because they really need an answer.
I don’t know the procedures in this court but where I’m from you have to put your case to witnesses where relevant. You have to give them a chance to comment on relevant matters. That may be why they asked the question. Having done so, they were quite happy to leave MTG’s evidence as “I dont’ recall”.
Another point of strategy - if a witness says they don’t remember certain actions, you may well have them over a barrel if they later try to explain those actions away. ie you can point out they’ve already given evidence they can’t remember their actions - so how can they now give excuses about actions they can’t even recall taking? Asking more questions can just allow them to qualify their initial statement, which may be disadvantageous.
Also, a witness saying “I dont’ recall” about something they obviously would recall is such a cliched lie that it’s probably left pregnant - your thinking AIUI - is that you can make Greene look more untrustworthy by playing with the implausibility of her lie - but she already looked untrustworthy. Again, asking more questions just gives her an opportunity to come up with explanations.
I’m not really sure where follow-up questions get you. She just keeps on repeating I don’t recall up to say around a week or two ago where she has a better recollection of what she may or may not have said. The same way that if I was asked whether I had ever made a straight dope post that used the word “flatulence”, I wouldn’t be able to say for sure one way or another. But I’m pretty sure that I haven’t in the last few weeks.
Her defense is likely to be that she tweets lots of red meat conservative rhetoric not all of which she means to be taken literally, and can’t keep track of which specific BS she may have tweeted.
I think establishing the fact that she can’t remember if she ever advocated martial law three weeks ago, or whatever timeframe she settles on, (and again I’m talking about A BIG FUCKING DEAL, not using the word “flatulence”), establishes that she’s clearly incompetent to serve in Congress, which is what the hearing is about.
The hearing is not about her competency, but her eligibility.
Regarding your question, the art of cross examination can get really complicate and surprisingly few lawyers are experts at it. Many lawyers spend far more time in depositions, where you get an admission (“I don’t recall”) and that’s the sound bite you need for your brief. They don’t have enough trial experience (or instinct) to know when to push for more and when to let it go. Honestly, there isn’t a “right” answer, and you have to get a feel for your audience and do the best you can on the fly. It’s one of the hardest things about trying cases, and a high profile witness with TV cameras running, isn’t going to bring out the best in most of us. (the few truly great lawyers might thrive in this situation though)
Disclaimer, I didn’t watch this cross examination, and know nothing about the lawyer who conducted it. He may be one of the best ever, for all I know.
Not exactly. It’s not about determining, for example, if her residency or her age disqualify her from serving, but rather violating her oath of office, and advocating for martial law under circumstances it isn’t warranted would be part of that. If she can be shown to lying about what she does and doesn’t remember about advocating for martial law, it might be presumed that she did that a year ago, and a month ago, and right now, and is therefore disqualified for serving in Congress under the 14th Amendment.