From Walter Dellinger, a strong, smart suggestion re: Dem use of time in hearings.

[Grasswire2]

[link:http://

Link to tweet

|

[Grasswire2]

1. many good comments follow. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Absolutely correct

No one listens to speeches and gotchas. Just go right to facts and let the witnesses speak.

[Leghorn21]

3. Best idea I've heard in a long long time.

DAMN it’s PERFECT

[Sogo]

4. And that attorney should be

Michael Avenatti.

He posted a series of excellent questions on Twitter prior to the Cohen hearing.

[Grasswire2]

5. not likely -- too controversial and would distract. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Man I miss him. He could generate electricity like

No one else.

[Sogo]

7. Agreed. That's why

I follow his tweets.

[progressoid]

8. Absolutely not.

[TheBlackAdder]

13. One positive: He already is the lightning rod of GOP ire, he could take some heat off of other Dems.

[rainin]

15. So is AOC. She's a lightening rod because she's effective.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. Why would you want her to take most of the heat?

[rainin]

21. All dems, especially leadership should be rallying around her right now.

She is a lightening rod because she is so effective.

I worry when the republicans find a target, some dems retreat rather than fight. Our most effective leaders, especially, the women, are targeted the most. We must support our leaders, especially our freshmen women! AOC, for one, is a powerhouse. They are scared of her.

[TheBlackAdder]

22. Yes, but AOC should do the good work and Avanatti the dirtier work.

.

No one does the dirty work that can bog them down and lead them into a quagmire of animosity, when others can do it.

This way, it would keep AOC more pure and focused and remove some of the flak that the GOP can leverage against her.

.

[rainin]

24. Sounds good to me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Great point. Plus he makes trump shake which I love

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Oh, God, no. The guy is a huckster and a fraud

and he'll be lucky to keep his law license now that it's been discovered he was using his client trust accounts to pay off his ex and other creditors. Ick. He's the last person who should be representing Democrats.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. thread (4 tweets)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1102301292217753601.html

1)The Test: If House Dems are serious about oversight of Trump, they will retain counsel to ask the first 2 hours of questions of each witness. Endless, uncoordinated 5 minute showoff rounds are not designed to find the truth.

2) If I said to a client: "My 2 hr. plan for examining the other side's key witness is to have 24 lawyers question her for 5 minutes each." That would be a former client. Even before I said they would not pay any attention to each other's questions or the answers..

3)Most Members of Congress do not have the time to prepare adequately and to be able to revise their questions to follow up on responses. Brandeis could not be effective in 5 minute rounds. Same questions are asked by Member after Member when serious issues need to be explored

4)The model is the Watergate Hearings where litigator and GT Law Prof Sam Dash questioned each witness for at least an hour before handing over the questioning to Sen Sam Ervin and his colleagues. Because Ervin cared about finding out what happened more than occupying TV Time.

[Grasswire2]

10. thanks

the response to this is very strong on twitter.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. These are excellent points and furthermore it

Takes the "politics" out of it. Which adds legitimacy. I would guess that Cohen had lots more that could have been discovered with expert questioning. Sane with Kavenaugh hearing.

I suppose we let everyone, even the poor questioners, ask just to be fair. If they don't get an attorney they should at the very least select the best and at least give them 10 min each

[BamaRefugee]

11. YES. We need a BENEVOLENT SLEDGEHAMMER to break up the concrete of corruption. Not 24 wooden mallets

[TheBlackAdder]

14. Thor.

.



.

[eleny]

12. Preet!

[rainin]

16. YES!!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. I saw him recently on tv. He has incredible way

about him that is very appealing. I can tell he is very analytical and sees things from a unique perspective.

[Cousin Dupree]

23. Eric Holder would be perfect!

[MineralMan]

25. That would probably not be a popular thing with committee members.

Those hearings are important to them, since they provide a national audience, along with opportunities to create campaign-ad-worthy statements. That applies to both Democratic and Republican committee members.

Getting to the truth is only one of the goals of such hearings. The other goal is purely political. I don't like that, but it's how the whole thing works, really. It's a platform for the individuals on the committee, and they won't give up that platform willingly.

[awesomerwb1]

27. I wouldn't be against that idea.

Dems need to be really smart about it and leave the politics for a later round.

But Avenatti...nope. That would completely discredit/distract the whole thing in the eyes of independents and the rest of non-Dems.

Work with retired top prosecutors like Bharara and others to formulate the right incisive questions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Dems had a cow when the GOPers brought in an attorney to question Kavanaugh

at his confirmation hearing. There was a lot of breast-beating about how congresscritters should be doing their damn jobs and asking their own damn questions. How would this be different? I agree that congressional hearings are often just an opportunity for grandstanding, but maybe a better way to get around this problem would be for the Dem members of the committee to consult with counsel to arrive at good, incisive questions and then decide among themselves who would ask them, and in what order, so as to allow for follow-up questioning by someone else after the allotted time has expired. GOPers are going to grandstand anyhow.