I’ve been saying this for a while. Issa (who actually has quite the blue-collar background, not that there’s anything wrong with that) but is absolutely no way no how a lawyer, has this thing where he likes to pretened he is a lawyer. And this unfortunate trait has very seriously impeded if not outright sabotaged previous investigations because he does NOT know the art of cross-examination. He ask questions that do not entrap the witness which is exactly the aim of cross examination. Instead, with his sloppiness, he allows the witness to create a bi- or tri- furcated answer and this in turn creates an ever-expanding field of uncertainty. It is exactly the wrong thing to do. Instead of narrowing down, the effect of his clumsy questioning is to widen out.
“I’ve been saying this for a while. Issa (who actually has quite the blue-collar background, not that there’s anything wrong with that) but is absolutely no way no how a lawyer, has this thing where he likes to pretened he is a lawyer. And this unfortunate trait has very seriously impeded if not outright sabotaged previous investigations because he does NOT know the art of cross-examination. He ask questions that do not entrap the witness which is exactly the aim of cross examination. Instead, with his sloppiness, he allows the witness to create a bi- or tri- furcated answer and this in turn creates an ever-expanding field of uncertainty. It is exactly the wrong thing to do. Instead of narrowing down, the effect of his clumsy questioning is to widen out.”
Committee chairmen have staff lawyers, Issa was a highly successful businessman, so no excuse.
Don’t forget though, the witness is hostile, it is political, and they too have lawyers.
Issa’s prank is lowgrade. I believe Gowdy would be upset that it demeans his professional effort.
Frankly, I liked Issa. I thought he did fine, but with as many as five committees competing on the same subject, it was a confusing matter of who’s on first, who’s on second and the cover up was in full sail at the time.
Now there is ONE committee and a the clever, cute kid running it is a prosecutor with a reputation. Trey Gowdy.
He is the best I’ve seen and there have been some greats at questioning witnesses.
I like him because he has said from the beginning that expectations are low that while under this president and this Justice Department that the Benghazi events will ever be resolved.
He will build the case block by block anyway, so that after 2016 maybe we can hope to hear it and resolve it. It will haunt Hillary nicely next summer, right during the heat of the her campaign battle. That suits me fine.
I hate lawyers.
The congressmen don’t ask questions anyway. They waste the time and their supposed questions are lengthy speeches. It’s really a shame.