Textbook Cross-Ex.

Hugh Hewitt demolishes the Los Angeles Times columnist who wrote a column on why he doesn't support American troops in Iraq.

Hewitt's trial attorney background bleeds through the interview. Hewitt politely asks simple, direct, answerable questions, he never asserts or argues with the columnist, but the result is that he has the columnist paint a picture of himself as a sheltered, narcissistic, ignorant snob. Witness this exchange:

HH: All right. And you're a graduate of Stanford, right? What year?

JS: I graduated Stanford in '93.

HH: All right. Now who is your...this is a column about the troops that begins, "I don't support our troops." We'll get to the specifics in a second. But who is your closest family member or friend who is on active duty?

JS: That's an excellent question. I wouldn't say I have a very close friend. I would say only acquaintances. No family at all.

HH: Who are your acquaintances?

JS: There was a guy who works at Time, that's where I worked last, who quit to serve in the military.

HH: What's his name?

JS: (pause) You know, I'm blanking on his name. But your point is well taken that I don't have many people that I even know who are in the military.

In that exchange the witness essentially admits that he is ttoo busy or too important to remember the names of non-entities who have the moral courage he lacks to put themselves in harm's way for their fellow citizens. Too many interviewers or attorneys try to wring such concessions directly from witness, which they will never get because no one thinks they are that way. They can be made too demonstrate that attitude, however, by asking the kinds of questions that show whether a person is caring or concerned or a pompous, self-centered punk.

Also, check this one out:

HH: Now let me ask you about the benefits that the president and supporters of the war point to, which is the end of a brutal regime in Afghanistan, and a brutal regime in Iraq? Is Iraq better off today than it was in February of 2003?

JS: I don't think it's the U.S.' job to make countries better than they were, or else we'd be really busy.

HH: Joel, I understand. It's a perfectly legitimate point of view. But it's not what I asked, though. Do you think objectively, that Iraq is better off today than it was in February in 2003?

JS: Februrary...um, again, I haven't been...it's hard for me to say. It's not a great place, and I think it's better than it was under Saddam.

That part about "it's a perfectly legitimate point of view. But It's not what I asked" is a classic bit of trial lore. When Racehorse Haynes would get a nonresponsive answer to an important question, he would apologize profusely for not being clear and he would do a big number about trying to ask a better question, then he would ask the exact same question as he had before. By doing this buck and wing, he'd underscore how clear his question was and how the witness had tried to evade.

Also, going back to the same question is a learned skill. It's absolutely amazing to see how many attorneys will accept non-responsive answer (or argue over responsive answers they don't like, but that's a different subject.)

Anyhow, it's a transcript well worth reading.