Make America Think Again

I Heard It From Friend

My life revolves around investigating matters brought before our Board. This includes preparing documents such as subpoenas, case summaries, and recordings. I have to sit through countless hours of testimony in an informal or formal setting. We often hear secondhand accounts, but those accounts must be proven with evidence. It can provide some context, but it cannot be used to revoke a license. It sounds boring to most, but it is necessary to keep the public safe. For this reason, I was curious about the hearings last week, so I listened to hours of the recorded hearings since last week since I refuse to believe anything in the media. Of course, it also helps if you have an old song playing in your head. As I listened, it reminded me of a song by REO Speedwagon, “Take It On The Run.” While it would not quite fit, I retooled the first two stanzas for today, and it would go like this:

“Heard it from a friend who

Heard it from a friend who

Heard it from another you been messin' around

They say you got a friend in Ukraine

You're up late every weekend Tweetin’ away

They're talkin' about you in order to bring you down.

But I know the neighborhood

And talk is cheap when the story is good

And the tales grow taller on down the line

So I'm telling you

That I don't think it's true."

If this were the song, it would sum-up how I have seen the hearings thus far. It was fascinating to hear what was not known by the three key witnesses. It was clear that all three disagreed with the President in his handling of the situation based on the policies. It was irregular, as Ambassador Taylor stated multiple times, but he only heard from a friend.

Was the crime collusion, obstruction, bribery, or extortion? Lest we forget, witness tampering and intimidation were also added on Friday. None of the “witnesses” could name a crime that was committed. Of course, this was not their job. It is the job of the committee to name the crime and prove it. The House Democrats seem to be working their way through the US Criminal Code to find just the circumstance to fit the crime that they cannot prove as of today. As evidence of their intent, they are now thinking of investigating the President for potentially lying to Mueller. Nevertheless, I can understand somewhat how the three witnesses felt since they were not fact witnesses but expert witnesses. There is a difference.

For example, I have given depositions, as an expert witness, in medical lawsuits for the plaintiff and defendant, depending on the case. I have turned cases down if either counsel wanted me to testify a certain way. Yes, it is a thing. You are often asked: Can you testify this occurred? Of course, my answer is unequivocal, no! In these cases, I have no firsthand knowledge of the events, so I am reading what was written. I never speak to the people being charged. In my case, I read what was written; then, I give my written opinion. If it goes to litigation, I am asked to provide a deposition for cross-examination under oath. It is recorded by a court reporter. It can be nerve-wracking, to say the least. In contrast, a fact witness has firsthand knowledge of the events.

As an expert witness, you are questioned by the attorneys for the defendant and plaintiff. The first step the opposing attorney takes is to destroy your credibility. They attack your professionalism, education, and experience. Some are nicer than others, but the intent is there to throw you off your game. It will throw you for a loop initially when it happens for the first time, even after your attorney preps you. During the deposition, you are in a room with no cell phones or internet access. You do not know what is taking place in the outside world. If someone is calling you names on Facebook, you will not know it until you have access once again. The whole process can be intimidating, but it is how things are done. For this reason, nothing in the hearings on either day last week surprised me except the witness tampering and intimidation charge leveled against the President as a result of his tweet.

I admit he should NOT have tweeted anything. However, under normal rules, when a defense is allowed, asking about the expert witness’s background would not have been called intimidation even if it was face-to-face. After listening to US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony, it made me even more skeptical about the new “charge.” According to Wikipedia, intimidation is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" to fear injury or harm. Who was intimidating whom? There is a part of the US Code that may apply in regard to witness tampering and intimidation.

U.S. Code § 1512 (b)states, "whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or "

It does not seem any of the above was done since she was giving testimony at the time the tweet was sent. In this case, the witness should not have been informed of the tweet since she was already sworn in. She was there to testify about her knowledge of the facts regarding the call and the issues surrounding the Ukraine-USA relations. Trump’s tweet could have been shared afterward to avoid any intimidation. In fact, Chairman Schiff should have withheld it unless his goal was to evoke a response for the cameras which he tried his best to do. She handled herself well despite Schiff’s attempts at intimidation.

As far as witness tampering, she stated in her testimony that she had not spoken to President Trump in 2019. She had no knowledge of the call. It is very difficult to tamper with a witness without ever speaking or writing to them, especially when they do not have knowledge of the events. She acknowledged that it was troubling he felt this way about her; she did not know this until Friday based on her reaction. He could not fire her again so this could not have been the reason she felt intimidated. From my observation, the entire process would have been intimidating enough without Chairmen Schiff introducing something like the tweet. Could Schiff have been trying to intimidate her into eliciting a response?

The most troubling aspect of the day was their attempt at making her a victim. They kept asking how she felt about her firing and the way she was treated. Feelings are irrelevant in hearings. It is about facts. They complimented her outstanding service while treating her as if she was some frail woman instead of a very accomplished, powerful woman that she is.

This career diplomat worked in Foreign Service for 33 years, which is a male-dominated field. In this role, she had to deal with many cultures that think women are not equal to men. I am certain she had to develop a tough exterior to withstand the arrogance of many foreign leaders who were much more “abrasive” than even President Trump. She probably had been treated much worse in those face-to-face meetings than in a tweet. At least Trump is an equal opportunity critic. I cannot imagine for a second that she could not stand her ground. Based on her lengthy testimony, she has grit and stamina. Nevertheless, they played her as a victim, and it was in total disregard for her accomplishments. Equality means equal, so they should have handled her exactly like the men. For me, it shows how they really view women.

I guess you can say that you now “Heard it from a friend who; Heard it from a friend.” Talk is cheap unless facts are presented. Of course, you have to decide who is lyin’ or tellin’ the truth, so you have to follow all the evidence to make an informed decision; otherwise, the tales get taller. The fact is we will see someone take on the run in 2020. Amazingly, he has thus far.

Author: Dr. Bill Croft