If you’ve ever wondered whether the strategies we teach in Temple’s Trial Advocacy Program apply beyond the courtroom, look no further than Senator Mark Kelly’s (D-AZ) questioning of CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard during the March 25, 2025 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. In a textbook application of the three C’s of impeachment—commit, credit, and confront—Kelly meticulously laid the groundwork for a potential takedown of two of the nation’s top intelligence officials. And he did it with exemplary patience and control, for the real confrontation would come later.
Setting the Trap: The Commitment Stage
During the hearing, Kelly pressed Ratcliffe and Gabbard on the now-infamous Signal group chat that included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and other top national security officials—along with, inadvertently, a journalist. The messages, sent between March 10 and March 15, 2025, reportedly contained discussions about potential U.S. military action in Yemen. The Atlantic’s reporting on the group chat had already raised alarms about national security risks, and Kelly was determined to pin down exactly what had been said.
This is the commitment stage of impeachment—the first step in our foundation for exposing prior inconsistent statements. Kelly needed Ratcliffe and Gabbard to commit to their version of events:
- Was there mention of a target in Yemen? Gabbard: “I don’t remember mention of specific targets.”
- Was there discussion of weapons? Ratcliffe: “I don’t recall.”
- Timing? Military units? Both: “Not that I recall.”
By forcing them to repeatedly affirm that these details (details, incidentally, that’d be pretty hard to forget) were not in the chat, Kelly ensured they were locked into a position. If evidence later contradicted their testimony, they’d be caught in a direct inconsistency.
Building the Credit: The Foundation for Impeachment
Kelly then reinforced the credibility of the sources that would later be used to challenge the witnesses. He asked about policies prohibiting discussion of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on unsecured platforms. Gabbard admitted the Intelligence Community had such a policy, while Ratcliffe, astonishingly, claimed ignorance of the DoD’s policy.
This step—crediting prior statements or policies—is crucial in courtroom impeachment. Kelly was methodically establishing that if the Signal messages did contain sensitive deliberations, it wouldn’t just be an embarrassment; it would be a violation of established protocol.
This moment is a master class for advocacy students. Kelly structured his questioning so that once the messages were public, there would be no wiggle room. If the chat logs revealed targets, weapons, or timing discussions, Ratcliffe and Gabbard wouldn’t just have made a mistake—they would have given sworn testimony that was demonstrably false.
Of course, at this point in Sen. Kelly’s questioning, the confrontation—the moment when the witness is presented with the prior inconsistent statement—hadn’t yet arrived.
The Confrontation Awaits
But, the very next day, March 26, 2025, The Atlantic published the military operation details discussed in a group text on Signal. Hours later, DNI Gabbard reappeared for testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Ranking member Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) accomplished the confrontation portion of our impeachment litany with the setup from the day before:
Rep: Himes: So it’s your testimony that less than two weeks ago you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ9 Reapers and targets on strike and you, in that two-week period, simply forgot that that was there. That’s your testimony?
Gabbard: My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.
Himes: “That was not your testimony. Your testimony was that you were not aware of anything related to weapons packages, targets, and timing.”
Gabbard: Uh, as the testimony yesterday continued on, there were further questions uh related to that where I acknowledge that there was uh conversation about weapons uh and uh I don’t remember the exact wording that I used but I did not recall the specific details that were included.
The Lesson for Advocates
This sequence exemplifies how a well-structured impeachment strategy works in practice. Kelly’s questioning subtly locked Gabbard into a denial. Himes, armed with newly released evidence, then confronted her with the stark reality of the chat’s content. This methodical approach to impeachment strategy highlights the importance of precision in questioning and the power of timing in advocacy.
Whether in a trial, a deposition, or an Intelligence hearing, the three C’s—commit, credit, confront—are a powerful tool for exposing inconsistencies. The best impeachment isn’t just a gotcha moment; it’s a carefully laid trap where the witness walks in voluntarily, only to find themselves boxed in when the truth comes out.
For those training in trial advocacy, this approach is worth studying. Sen. Kelly’s questioning wasn’t about theatrics or grandstanding; it was about methodically building an airtight case. And in advocacy—whether before a jury or before the nation—there’s no substitute for a well-executed impeachment strategy.
Senator Kelly just reminded us that advocacy skills don’t just stay in the courtroom. They’re just as powerful in the halls of power.
Professor Marian Braccia is Director of the LL.M. in Trial Advocacy at Temple University Beasley School Of Law.