You don’t say: the testimony of Amy Coney Barrett
I was once a witness in a libel trial (hard to believe I had anything to do with libel, isn’t it?) and the lawyers involved called me in to do a mock deposition.
A mock deposition is a trial run before the real deposition so your lawyers can see just how many stupid things you plan on saying once the other side’s lawyer starts asking you questions.
So I got asked a mock deposition question and started to answer and was immediately stopped because I made a rookie mistake: I actually tried to answer the question.
They say there’s nothing a lawyer hates worse than the sound of his client’s voice because the client might say something the other side can use. Turned out my job was to say as little as possible because if somebody wants to shoot you, maybe you shouldn’t hand them the bullets.
Here’s a tip:
If you say “I don’t recall” there’s no way for anyone to prove you do recall which is why it’s such a popular answer among people trying to keep their fat out of the fire.
Remember that next time you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar: “At this point in time I do not recall a cookie jar or the whereabouts of my hand on the date in question.”
I once read a book on police interrogation techniques and one of them is to bring you in, sit you down and then ignore you. People are so anxious to tell their side of the story they’ll talk even when they should keep quiet, so smart people resist the temptation.
Which brings us to Amy Coney Barrett.
The Senate confirmation hearings
This comes from the New York Times:
“Judge Amy Coney Barrett took a particularly rigorous approach to the strategy used by all modern Supreme Court nominees: avoiding saying anything about issues that could turn into court cases and saying almost nothing about cases the courts have already decided.”
According to the Times article Barrett wouldn’t say:
Whether separating children from their parents to deter immigration was wrong.
Whether Donald Trump can delay the election.
Whether Donald Trump could pardon himself.
Whether climate change was real.
Whether abortion and gay rights decisions should be reconsidered.
Whether the Democrats like it or not, Barrett did what smart lawyers do and if you’d asked her what day of the week it was, she would have found an excuse not to answer, which as you can see, struck me as a cartoon opportunity.
A Supreme Court nominee can get away with not answering questions, but if you were being interviewed for almost any other job, refusing to give a straight answer wouldn’t fly.
To make that point I imagined a car mechanic’s answer if he had been asked if he knew how to change a set of spark plugs.
Now imagine a carpenter who refused to discuss any of his past work and insisted it had nothing to do with the stuff he might build in the future and if you wanted to know how he would go about adding a deck to your house, refused to tell you, but still wanted the job.
Or a bricklayer who just didn’t want to discuss how long it would take or how much it would cost should you hire him to build a patio.
It struck me as funny that a Supreme Court nominee can get away with not answering questions and a guy who comes to fix your toilet couldn’t.
BTW:
Just in case you’re wondering…
The libel trial I was involved in had to do with the Hyatt collapse and the Kansas City Star got drug into court over news articles, editorials and one of my cartoons. And if you want to know what the cartoon said…
I don’t recall.