MTG hearing clearly shows that the obvious reason that MTG couldn't

Not going to be easy having a discussion or especially any reconciliation with these brainwashed specimens.

half of all witnesses are considered adverse or hostile. All it means is that MTG was acting as an adversary and the attorney can ask leading questions. It's legal speak and happens in most if not all trials.

People shouldn’t make that big of a deal about it as it won’t affect the outcome.

attack with Jewish space lasers?

" Yes...um...wait...um...I don't recall"

some video or audio recordings to help jog her memory?

Never stands in front of Magats and says
Ah, uhm. Uh. I don't recall.

Most of his questions were not supported by backup evidence.

She knew when to say "yes," when to say "no," and mostly when to say "I don't recall." Since she asked for questions to be rephrased so often tells me that she was shopping for certain phrases that she had been coached on.

As for the other side, again my opinion - it looked like they were not prepared. The lawyer for the plaintiff shuffled through papers too much, was unclear on what video clips were what, and they had not arranged for simple laptop to screen visuals that anyone who cracked open a PowerPoint for Dummies book could have done smoothly.

Added to that, knowing that rethugs dismiss any news outlet outside of Fox News, OAN, and NewsMax as "fake news," they should have used clips of her speaking the words she claimed were taken out of context without letting it slip that the source was Mother Jones. Would anyone here accept a video sourced from a reichwing source as a serious piece of evidence in a court proceeding? Of course not.

I have run meetings in corporate settings and taught language classes in my professional careers. The key to a successful presentation comes down to preparation preparation preparation. Notice that I did not say experience, massive brain power, or the oratorical skill of Alan Shore.* You just need the ability to stand in front of the audience, have all your ducks in an organized row, and methodically show the evidence without having to take a recess to find it.

* I've been binge watching Boston Legal. While I would never want to be a friend or colleague of James Spader's character, he sure is fun to watch.

doesn't really believe what she says to her dipshit followers. If she was proud of her stance she wouldn't be afraid to answer. I wonder if her flock will see she's not as committed to the fraud as they thought. Wake up dummies you're being used.

Also, a couple of lawyers on twitter Terry Kanefield is one I think was saying that he was getting her on record, not trying gotcha questions. The fact that she didn't say NO was getting her on record of not denying anything. It's difficult to prove anything but an judge should be able to see that she was lying....something to that effect.

If he had said that, MTG’s attorney would have objected, and would have been sustained. An Attorney cannot speculate about motives or facts not in evidence.