If you\u2019ve ever wondered whether the strategies we teach in Temple\u2019s Trial Advocacy Program apply beyond the courtroom, look no further than Senator Mark Kelly\u2019s (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\u2019s of impeachment\u2014commit, credit, and confront\u2014Kelly meticulously laid the groundwork for a potential takedown of two of the nation\u2019s top intelligence officials. And he did it with exemplary patience and control, for the real confrontation would come later.<\/p>\n
Setting the Trap: The Commitment Stage<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2014along 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<\/em>\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n This is the commitment stage of impeachment\u2014the first step in our foundation for exposing prior inconsistent statements. Kelly needed Ratcliffe and Gabbard to commit to their version of events:<\/p>\n By forcing them to repeatedly affirm that these details (details, incidentally, that\u2019d be pretty hard to forget) were not<\/em> in the chat, Kelly ensured they were locked into a position. If evidence later contradicted their testimony, they\u2019d be caught in a direct inconsistency.<\/p>\n Building the Credit: The Foundation for Impeachment<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2019s policy.<\/p>\n This step\u2014crediting prior statements or policies\u2014is crucial in courtroom impeachment. Kelly was methodically establishing that if the Signal messages did<\/em> contain sensitive deliberations, it wouldn\u2019t just be an embarrassment; it would be a violation of established protocol.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t just have made a mistake\u2014they would have given sworn testimony that was demonstrably false.<\/p>\n Of course, at this point in Sen. Kelly\u2019s questioning, the confrontation\u2014the moment when the witness is presented with the prior inconsistent statement\u2014hadn\u2019t yet arrived.<\/p>\n The Confrontation Awaits<\/strong><\/p>\n But, the very next day, March 26, 2025, The Atlantic<\/em> published the military operation details discussed in a group text on Signal. \u00a0Hours later, DNI Gabbard reappeared for testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.\u00a0\u00a0 Ranking member Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) accomplished the confrontation portion of our impeachment litany with the setup from the day before:<\/p>\n Rep: Himes<\/strong>: So it\u2019s 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\u2019s your testimony?<\/p>\n Gabbard: <\/strong>My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.<\/p>\n Himes<\/strong>: \u201cThat was not your testimony. Your testimony was that you were not aware of anything related to weapons packages, targets, and timing.\u201d<\/p>\n Gabbard<\/strong>: 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\u2019t remember the exact wording that I used but I did not recall the specific details that were included.<\/p>\n The Lesson for Advocates<\/strong><\/p>\n This sequence exemplifies how a well-structured impeachment strategy works in practice. Kelly\u2019s questioning subtly locked Gabbard into a denial. Himes, armed with newly released evidence, then confronted her with the stark reality of the chat\u2019s content. This methodical approach to impeachment strategy highlights the importance of precision in questioning and the power of timing in advocacy.<\/p>\n Whether in a trial, a deposition, or an Intelligence hearing, the three C\u2019s\u2014commit, credit, confront\u2014are a powerful tool for exposing inconsistencies. The best impeachment isn\u2019t just a gotcha moment; it\u2019s a carefully laid trap where the witness walks in voluntarily, only to find themselves boxed in when the truth comes out.<\/p>\n For those training in trial advocacy, this approach is worth studying. Sen. Kelly\u2019s questioning wasn\u2019t about theatrics or grandstanding; it was about methodically building an airtight case. And in advocacy\u2014whether before a jury or before the nation\u2014there\u2019s no substitute for a well-executed impeachment strategy.<\/p>\n Senator Kelly just reminded us that advocacy skills don\u2019t just stay in the courtroom. They\u2019re just as powerful in the halls of power.<\/p>\n Professor Marian Braccia is Director of the LL.M. in Trial Advocacy at Temple University Beasley School Of Law.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you\u2019ve ever wondered whether the strategies we teach in Temple\u2019s Trial Advocacy Program apply beyond the courtroom, look no further than Senator Mark Kelly\u2019s (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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[257],"class_list":["post-3891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n\n