If I were subpoenaed, I would just go there, and answer questions.
The fact that they are making prepared statements is like advocacy...like they've got a dog in the hunt. "Here is what I want to say..." Who cares what you want to say?...other than to hear your biases.
Today, Sondland said there was QPQ in his statement...then under cross, he said there was no QPQ evidence other than his presumption, and admitted he was specifically instructed that there was no QPQ. Very weird...totally undermines his effectiveness as a witness. But, I guess the Left got what it wanted, because people like Frank and scooter and 521 still believe his 23 page operning statement, and just disregard the cross-examination that exposes the falsehood.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
A good lawyer vets the dogshit out of the client’s narrative, scrutinizing any possible exposure.
After taking inventory, the lawyer guides the client how to answer questions, what to highlight, what to avoid.
(no message)
(no message)
That's kind of how this often works in real life civil lawsuits, when an expert opines on a subject, depending on the zealousness of the attorney...it would be worse in Capitol hearing prep where every Congressman is overzealous. Of course, these people aren't experts opining on a subject they are trained on.
Maybe they bother with that first draft step just in case Jordan asks, "Did you write that? Did you consult with anyone on your statement?" But, they may not even worry about it.
But, as I point out to conor, all that is beside the point. The issue, IMO, is as I said below: Are they an advocate or a witness? They are acting like advocates with these statements.
(no message)
(no message)
These people aren't being asked to show up an opine on something regarding which they are an expert. And, they are most certainly not experts in High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are told what to say by the people questioning them. It is a mistake to let them open with a statement; it undermines their supposed neutrality.
It is a Congressional hearing, which allows Congressmen (especially the Republican ones) to make speeches re irrelevant issues, as opposed to asking fact based questions.
Once again, the opening statements facilitate the subsequent examination, speeding up the process.
Of course it is not a deposition. It's an analogy. Pick another one: a grand jury. Regardless...
An opening statement means you come to the forum with something you want to say. You become an advocate.
A witness only answers questions, even if they are open ended questions.
These people have exposed themselves as advocates. Surely you can see that. But, even if you do see the point, I wouldn't expect you to admit it front of a jury of your peers...the Open.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)