[PUGACHEV]

I cross-examine witnesses for a living, but I admit that there are others who are superb at the art. In a situation like this, you do not want to attack her character directly. That makes you look like a bully and creates sympathy for the witness. You want to focus on the things she does not remember, like a description of the event, the people there, how it came about. She will constantly admit not remembering details. People always do that because they believe it enhances their perception by others as an honest person. After you get a string of "I don't remember" answers, four or five in a row, her credibility begins to fade. Don't ask about specific details, like what color was the room. Suppose she says green, where do you go from there?

Ask about how she recovered her memory and how long after the event that was. The more you dwell on the specifics of how a therapist "recovers" memory, the less any rational person would believe it. Ask about who she told of the event at the time. You already know she did not tell anyone. Finally, you can home in on who she is now, her political affiliations, and how she came to contact Feinstein. Do you homework: read as many articles and publications written by her as you can find, and see if you can find any of her postings still on the internet. Use them accordingly in a gentle but condescending way to portray her as a nut-case.

Your goal is not to paint her as an evil person (although she may be); your goal is to make her appear as a confused and troubled person, one who is an embarrassment to the Democrats who are trying to use her.

[Jane Long]

👍🏼👍🏼