At the risk of repetition, below is the Comment I posted at Robert Hubbell's newsletter, in response to his take on the testimony by the three university presidents, which reserved criticism for the university presidents, failing to note how they were sandbagged (and, yes, woefully unprepared, as Mr. Tomasky points out), with not a word …
At the risk of repetition, below is the Comment I posted at Robert Hubbell's newsletter, in response to his take on the testimony by the three university presidents, which reserved criticism for the university presidents, failing to note how they were sandbagged (and, yes, woefully unprepared, as Mr. Tomasky points out), with not a word of critique for Rep. Stefanik.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful.
This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes."
Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it.
Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?"
First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians.
Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate.
Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct.
Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes."
Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean.
For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means.
Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?"
That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech.
In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it call for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness.
She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that Dr. Gay had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada."
Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here.
Frankly, this carelessness led Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people.
That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses, made clear.
With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for the murder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared.
Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates why I hold this view.
It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most long-standing and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In fact, President Biden's concern on this issue is in line with the majority of the residents of Israel.
In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
In other words - a Republican-run hearing. Their point is not to elicit information from witnesses - the whole point IS to sandbag, intimidate & mischaracterize - getting those soundbites out there. It doesnt matter who the witness is or what their expertise is - those are the points each Repub. is looking for - nothing else.
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
I send out a sort of "newsletter" to members of my climate change advocacy group (CCL) and other folks I have met up with over the last few years. This is an example of the kind of thing this may include (taken from most recent one):
In the 10/2023 issue of the journal Biological Conservation is a massive study of wildlife rehabilitation efforts (674,320 records, spanning 1975-2019) that demonstrated how human activities are impacting animals in the wild, as the interface with humans increases due to habitat encroachment and other factors.
Climate change is another way that human activity is threatening wildlife. Specifically in relation to climate change, the article points out that extreme weather events, to which climate change is contributing, were followed by increased numbers of animals arriving at rehab centers over the subsequent week.
This varied by location and type of event. Hurricanes and floods in southern Florida were particularly problematic. This effect was greater in more recent years, which the authors considered as possibly due to the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events over time (NAS, 2016; Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017). Per other studies, multiple other extreme events adversely affect wildlife health, mortality, and reproduction. These include cyclones, droughts, high rainfall, floods, cold waves, heat waves, and marine heat waves (Cohen et al., 2020; Maxwell et al., 2019; Piatt et al., 2020; Pruvot et al., 2019). Heat, as one example, may have immediate effect on one species (e.g., mass die-off of bats, or marine birds), but affect other species in more gradual fashion. The authors recommend that disaster management plans take the effects on wildlife into account, particularly for rare and endangered species, and increased funding for wildlife rehab centers following such events.
TAKEAWAY: This represents yet another complication and cost, both financial and in animal suffering and population declines, of extreme weather events, which are already recognized as greatly taxing governmental and private resources.
************
One of the other sections of that newsletter provided an explicit comparison of the weapons available to and used by Hamas fighters versus those of the Israeli Defense Forces, and how this quite phenomenal power imbalance is reflected in the tactics utilized by these opponents (guerrilla attacks versus massive bombing). So, you can see my net is a wide one.
If this is the kind of thing you might find of interest, send me an email at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, and I will include you. If you find you deleting it without reading it at all, just ask to be removed - no worries. Just a thought. Gary
At the risk of repetition, below is the Comment I posted at Robert Hubbell's newsletter, in response to his take on the testimony by the three university presidents, which reserved criticism for the university presidents, failing to note how they were sandbagged (and, yes, woefully unprepared, as Mr. Tomasky points out), with not a word of critique for Rep. Stefanik.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful.
This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes."
Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it.
Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?"
First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians.
Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate.
Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct.
Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes."
Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean.
For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means.
Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?"
That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech.
In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it call for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness.
She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that Dr. Gay had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada."
Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here.
Frankly, this carelessness led Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people.
That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses, made clear.
With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for the murder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared.
Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates why I hold this view.
It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most long-standing and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In fact, President Biden's concern on this issue is in line with the majority of the residents of Israel.
In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
Excellent post.
In other words - a Republican-run hearing. Their point is not to elicit information from witnesses - the whole point IS to sandbag, intimidate & mischaracterize - getting those soundbites out there. It doesnt matter who the witness is or what their expertise is - those are the points each Repub. is looking for - nothing else.
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
I wonder who made up “Sticks and Stones” being that words are so powerful they can feel like an actual assault.
So true - I really love watching the people who DO manage to turn the tables on them.
Gary, I read your comment on Robert Hubbell’s post today and really appreciated your insight.
I’m so less knowledgeable, well…about a lot of stuff ! Also, thanks for the spacing on the paragraphs. Easier on the 👀
You are very kind to say so, Kathy. And I also find reading the long posts with no breaks rather trying.
Thank you.
Thank you for your in depth and accurate analysis. I appreciate that you took the time to lay it all down.
My annoyance and disappointment motivate me, and thank you for the kind sppreciation.
"annoyance and disappointment" - the punishment of the competent.
An eloquent and intelligent appraisal; thanks for taking the time to write this, and to break it into digestible pieces.
Such a nice compliment, thanks, Janice.
I send out a sort of "newsletter" to members of my climate change advocacy group (CCL) and other folks I have met up with over the last few years. This is an example of the kind of thing this may include (taken from most recent one):
In the 10/2023 issue of the journal Biological Conservation is a massive study of wildlife rehabilitation efforts (674,320 records, spanning 1975-2019) that demonstrated how human activities are impacting animals in the wild, as the interface with humans increases due to habitat encroachment and other factors.
Climate change is another way that human activity is threatening wildlife. Specifically in relation to climate change, the article points out that extreme weather events, to which climate change is contributing, were followed by increased numbers of animals arriving at rehab centers over the subsequent week.
This varied by location and type of event. Hurricanes and floods in southern Florida were particularly problematic. This effect was greater in more recent years, which the authors considered as possibly due to the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events over time (NAS, 2016; Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017). Per other studies, multiple other extreme events adversely affect wildlife health, mortality, and reproduction. These include cyclones, droughts, high rainfall, floods, cold waves, heat waves, and marine heat waves (Cohen et al., 2020; Maxwell et al., 2019; Piatt et al., 2020; Pruvot et al., 2019). Heat, as one example, may have immediate effect on one species (e.g., mass die-off of bats, or marine birds), but affect other species in more gradual fashion. The authors recommend that disaster management plans take the effects on wildlife into account, particularly for rare and endangered species, and increased funding for wildlife rehab centers following such events.
TAKEAWAY: This represents yet another complication and cost, both financial and in animal suffering and population declines, of extreme weather events, which are already recognized as greatly taxing governmental and private resources.
************
One of the other sections of that newsletter provided an explicit comparison of the weapons available to and used by Hamas fighters versus those of the Israeli Defense Forces, and how this quite phenomenal power imbalance is reflected in the tactics utilized by these opponents (guerrilla attacks versus massive bombing). So, you can see my net is a wide one.
If this is the kind of thing you might find of interest, send me an email at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, and I will include you. If you find you deleting it without reading it at all, just ask to be removed - no worries. Just a thought. Gary