Wed Nov 13, 2019, 06:58 PM

Question about legal/hearing strategy...

I would venture a guess that the witnesses today had maybe 2-3 hrs? of valuable testimony.

Why do we keep people so long? Why would you do that, as a trial/hearing strategy?

Strikes me that it frees up time for opposition to riff. Why wouldn't you say, these witnesses have a finite involvement? And zero in on exactly what they can offer that is pertinent? In my mind too, if you don't do that you run the risk of voters tuning out and the key points they offer being lost?

Not dissing anyone just don't get it. Not looking for "it was great" comments but legal strategy perspectives

7 replies, 569 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

7 replies	Author	Time	Post
Question about legal/hearing strategy... (Original post)	Laura PourMeADrink	Nov 2019	OP
My take	StarfishSaver	Nov 2019	#1
Well put. Thanks.	trof	Nov 2019	#2
Agree, yet there has to be some point of optimum	Laura PourMeADrink	Nov 2019	#3
From what I've heard, you're in the minority of people who are criticicizing the length, breadth and	StarfishSaver	Nov 2019	#4
Ha, one who sees things from a different angle!	Laura PourMeADrink	Nov 2019	#5
It's not a drive thru window. These things are purposeful and take time to get right.	NCLefty	Nov 2019	#6
So no correlation between value/info derived and	Laura PourMeADrink	Nov 2019	#7

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 07:04 PM

StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)

1. My take

Unlike in a trial where you're trying to prove specific elements of a crime or civil wrong, a congressional hearing is more of an open ended fact-finding process. This requires not just laying out basic facts, but asking additional questions, delving into the testimony to test it, pull out more facts, and possibly develop additional evidence. That takes much longer than traditional testimony that people are used to seeing in a courtroom trial.

Reply to this post

Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 07:07 PM

trof (54,052 posts)

2. Well put. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 08:00 PM

Laura PourMeADrink (41,225 posts)

3. Agree, yet there has to be some point of optimum

value? If a person (any person not just today) knew one fact that wouldn't equal one full day automatically, would it? Is there absolutely no consideration given to value vs time there? If questions/diatribes occur that are totally irrelevant to the witnesses exactly what good/value is derived?

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 08:10 PM

StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)

4. From what I've heard, you're in the minority of people who are criticicizing the length, breadth and

depth of today's questioning.

In fact, so far, you're the only person I've seen complaining about this.

Reply to this post

Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 09:08 PM

Laura PourMeADrink (41,225 posts)

5. Ha, one who sees things from a different angle!

Complaining? What an odd choice of words! Like "get on board with the group think !! " Never learned a single thing from a hundred people all agreeing!

I am looking for people with legal experience who actually can speak analytically about the topic.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 09:27 PM

NCLefty (3,678 posts)

6. It's not a drive thru window. These things are purposeful and take time to get right.

Reply to this post

Response to NCLefty (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 13, 2019, 09:44 PM

Laura PourMeADrink (41,225 posts)

7. So no correlation between value/info derived and

length of hearing?

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)