questioning, but I do suggest that we proceed and see how it goes. We're not in any—you know, our goal here is not to badger your client or pester you with questions, but this is the process that we follow.
Mr. Brothers. We can proceed. Certainly, we're not going to let this come between us in proceeding with the deposition today.
I will say: Nontraditional. I mean, the committee insisted on a deposition. And I think, when the committee is going to insist on a deposition, it should hold a deposition, not hold some sort of hybrid that it's come up with.
I also would note that, you know, that's not common in traditional depositions, that's not common in courtrooms, and, frankly, that is not common in committee hearings, public committee hearings. It's not just an open hot bench, if you will, where members just get to shoot questions and interject.
So I don't think that it is appropriate. However, we are willing to proceed.
And I think the compromise we can reach is: You guys have your procedures. We will abide by them. However, I will interject if I feel that we're just rapid-firing, switching between people, and badgering the witness. I will not allow that, and I will request a break if that becomes a problem to allow the witness a break from any badgering.
Yep. We have no intention of badgering your client.
So I think it sounds like, with all that being said, we could probably get started here.
Mr. Brothers. I agree.
Okay.
Let me, before we do get started, though, allow Ms. Lofgren—is there anything you would like to say before we get going with the questioning?
