Listened to about 20 mins of the questioning this morning. My first impression is Lt Col Vindman is extremely sketch. So many inconsistencies brought up and easy consistencies with some even from his opening statement, but even more so from his deposition. That’s all facts. It’s in the record.

Then my opinion is that he appear to have been coached. Some key things showing up and at least two instances of a “start over” after a question from a Dem. Again, my opinion from my albeit limited experience in preps before a deposition where my statements could be damning for my organization and for me personally. 

Jennifer Williams seemed fine, but most of the questions were for Vindman.

Listened to maybe 30 mins this afternoon. The below about sums it up.

Listened to about 20 mins of the questioning this morning. My first impression is Lt Col Vindman is extremely sketch. So many inconsistencies brought up and easy consistencies with some even from his opening statement, but even more so from his deposition. That’s all facts. It’s in the record.

Then my opinion is that he appear to have been coached. Some key things showing up and at least two instances of a “start over” after a question from a Dem. Again, my opinion from my albeit limited experience in preps before a deposition where my statements could be damning for my organization and for me personally. 

Jennifer Williams seemed fine, but most of the questions were for Vindman.

From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.

I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.

These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.

From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.

I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.

These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.

Fixed it for you.

The MAJORITY PARTY in the House is the Democrat Party.  They started this circus without a vote, then held a vote to continue it a month later which only Dems (and the one Independent who caucuses w/the Dems) voted for.  Two Dems were honest enough to vote against it.

The RIGHT didn't "schedule" anything.  They want this Schiff Show to be disbanded.

Here's the tally from the joke ... I mean vote ... that Pelosi called:

Fixed it for you.

The MAJORITY PARTY in the House is the Democrat Party.  They started this circus without a vote, then held a vote to continue it a month later which only Dems (and the one Independent who caucuses w/the Dems) voted for.  Two Dems were honest enough to vote against it.

The RIGHT didn't "schedule" anything.  They want this Schiff Show to be disbanded.

Here's the tally from the joke ... I mean vote ... that Pelosi called:

Ok, you got me. The right didn't schedule it but my point was that the hearings aren't fact finding missions, they are both sides taking turns pontificating. Very few questions asked show any interest in trying to find some truth in the weeds but instead trying to attack or defend Trump. Their questions are not fact finding in nature.

Ok, you got me. The right didn't schedule it but my point was that the hearings aren't fact finding missions, they are both sides taking turns pontificating. Very few questions asked show any interest in trying to find some truth in the weeds but instead trying to attack or defend Trump. Their questions are not fact finding in nature.

There are only four (4) relevant facts, and they have not changed since the Schiff Show started:

1.  The transcript showed there was no quid pro quo, no pressure, no linkage and/or no conditions (i.e. "you investigate or no security dollars") set by Trump for release of aid to Ukraine;

2.  No one who was on the call heard Trump make any demands, which is what LtCol Vindman LATER tried to say Trump was "intending", yet Vindman provided EDITS to the transcript to his boss and to WH legal to include in the transcript, and not one of the edits included anything about a demand;

3.  Ukraine didn't know about the delay in aid funding at the time of the call, and witnesses said the Ukrainians didn't hear about it until late August when Politico ran an article with it;

4.  Finally, the Ukrainians didn't do ANYTHING -- no statement, no investigating, no promise -- and the aid was released.


Pelosi called Trump an "imposter".  The Dems have never accepted that Clinton lost to Trump.  They've been trying to obstruct and remove him since before inauguration. 

You're not going to see any testimony that offers anything new.    If you really took time to listen to the Republicans' questions, you'd have picked up on what I said above.  They asked EVERY SINGLE WITNESS whether they had any evidence of quid pro quo, use of aid as leverage, Ukrainians DOING ANYTHING to get the aid released, or any other impeachable offense the President may have committed.

Without exception, they all testified under oath that they had no such evidence.

The Dems have not asked any actual questions.  They used their time to smear Trump, make accusatory comments, and spin the testimony into sound bites.

The Dems have not asked any actual questions.  They used their time to smear Trump, make accusatory comments, and spin the testimony into sound bites.

Don't forget to ask about feelings.

1) From a podcast I was listening to, all these witnesses are coached to some extent by their lawyers so as to protect themselves from any inconsistent testimony or saying something that could be taken the wrong way. They are facing a handful of people, half trying to lead them to answer a question one way with the other half trying to lead them to answer a question a different way. Names and dates and statements are being thrown at them in quick order and they are being asked their opinions. Its not something one would want to go into winging it.

2) I don't know if we heard the same 20 minutes but to me all that really stood out where republicans and democrats trying to hear what they wanted. I know one republican kept cutting him off during questioning and someone had to give the witness time to answer the question. If you ask a question and don't let the person answer it then you were never really interested in the answer.

3) These whole things aren't really inquiries, they are just the left and the right scheduling a pontification session.

Had typed up a response, but lost it.  So here goes again. . .

1) What you're describing is what I considering standard preparation for deposition (or testimony). What I meant by coaching is that Vindman appeared to be prepared to answer specific questions a certain way.  There were at least two instances where he started, stopped, and continued with "I would to go back and start over" (or something like that).  Having been deposed a few times (never had to testify), yes, there are various names, dates, statements being thrown at you.  Luckily in my case, I was actually a pawn in lawsuits between two companies.  However, my statements very much put myself and my organization at risk.  That being said, were there more folks to testified coached, similar to my view of Vindman?  Probably, but somehow Vindman came across to me as obvious about it.  He's probably not as seasoned at doing it as those "career foreign service" folks.  Just my opinion.

2) Cutting off someone before the finish answering your question is something I HATE.  Steve Inskeep at NPR always does that when the person on his show is someone he doesn't agree with. 

3) Of course there's going to be pontification.  They are POLITICIANS!  However, there's also smart use of the opportunity to get things on the records, such as testimony or transcripts that one side refuses to release.  And then there's the approach of ask once, twice, three times, etc and get consistent responses.  Then there were questions that brought up serious doubt on timelines, who said what, who reported to who, etc.  To me, those were valuable questions. 

The Dems have not asked any actual questions. 

I think I heard on D Sen ask how the person testifying was doing. . . 

I think I heard on D Sen ask how the person testifying was doing. . . 

That's what I call hard-hitting fact-finding!!

Impeachment of a sitting President requires nothing less.   

The "actual" substance of his testimony aside, Sondland was pretty entertaining.  Deflecting questions with humor, which I really got a kick out of this one:

D Sen: ". . . where they referred to you as "Problem G"

Sondland: "that's what my wife calls me". . . "maybe they're colluding with each other" (or something like that)

I thought that was pretty funny.  There was another as well in there that I caught while I was running errands at lunch.

Each time I gave depositions, it was a very serious affair.  Yet, I do recall a number of times where I got my legal counsel, reporter, and moderator/mediator/neutral person/whatever there to laugh at my response.  I wasn't meaning to be funny, but I guess they thought it was.      

The "actual" substance of his testimony aside, Sondland was pretty entertaining.  Deflecting questions with humor, which I really got a kick out of this one:

D Sen: ". . . where they referred to you as "Problem G"

Sondland: "that's what my wife calls me". . . "maybe they're colluding with each other" (or something like that)

I thought that was pretty funny.  There was another as well in there that I caught while I was running errands at lunch.

Each time I gave depositions, it was a very serious affair.  Yet, I do recall a number of times where I got my legal counsel, reporter, and moderator/mediator/neutral person/whatever there to laugh at my response.  I wasn't meaning to be funny, but I guess they thought it was.      

Some of the "clever" questions lawyers come up with often result in even more clever responses.

The question is the joke.  The answer is the punchline.

Some of the "clever" questions lawyers come up with often result in even more clever responses.

The question is the joke.  The answer is the punchline.

They definitely have clever questions.  One lawyer tried to pull the two question one, but I was ready.  It was obvious and my response to clarify that is what made them laugh.  My attorney said she would've stepped in, but I responded so quickly, she didn't get a chance.  There was literally a "play list" of what to expect and I swear this attorney tried over half of them. 

They definitely have clever questions.  One lawyer tried to pull the two question one, but I was ready.  It was obvious and my response to clarify that is what made them laugh.  My attorney said she would've stepped in, but I responded so quickly, she didn't get a chance.  There was literally a "play list" of what to expect and I swear this attorney tried over half of them.

Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH.  Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.

And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect.  1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom.  He left and someone else walked in and took them.  He came back asking who has his bags.  No one knew this was a drill.  The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place.  1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).

That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers).  It helps me remember more details.  And also to look for more details that are not common.  If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue.  But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.

That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers). 

Wait, is that wassis?   

 

Wait, is that wassis?   

 

As long as you use the work papolo, it's not.

nothing to see here, move along

Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH.  Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.

And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect.  1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom.  He left and someone else walked in and took them.  He came back asking who has his bags.  No one knew this was a drill.  The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place.  1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).

That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers).  It helps me remember more details.  And also to look for more details that are not common.  If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue.  But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.

I'm one of those guys that prepares for SHTF situations.
One of the survival techniques is to be "Grey"( I prefer the English spelling).
Most people won't notice me anywhere. Old man, old clothes, old beater truck,
gray hair, beard , no Tats.
Blend in.
Most people are too obsessed with their immediate self
to keep an eye out for the "situation".
BTW get a better spellchecker.  I knew what you meant,
but some people like to point out slight imperfections as a means
of minimizing your point.

Things I learned in my interrogation class at UH.  Rapid fire questions and double edge questions.

And that majority of eye witnesses are wron when IDing a suspect.  1 class the instructor arrived and put his bags on the table in front of the classroom.  He left and someone else walked in and took them.  He came back asking who has his bags.  No one knew this was a drill.  The descriptions of the guy who took the bag were all over the place.  1 guy even said it was a black dude (it was a white guy who took the bags).

That's why when I have to ID someone or see some one suspecisius, I give myself verbal que's of what they look like (like Taken when the daughter was describing her takers).  It helps me remember more details.  And also to look for more details that are not common.  If you say blue shirt, that could easily be changed or many people wearing blue.  But if you notice tattoo's, scars, deformities, or what kind of blue shirt (pocket right side, discoloration in an area, brand logo) then it helps more.

I don't have a problem remembering what someone looks like.

I have a pornographic memory.   

sundland's testimony is being touted as an "IED" "blowtorch" or "bombshell" by the fakestream media
of course they aren't showing this little tidbit

https://youtu.be/YSlX9m1iZ6M?t=234