Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[RomaVicta 30592]

Deleted: Everybody had moved on from Clinton. No need to raise the issue again.

Edited September 25, 2018 by RomaVicta

[tantric superman 4668]

2 minutes ago, scottsins said:

As far as the general public goes, her appearance isn’t going to convince anyone that won’t feel the same after hearing her statement or seeing her go on 60 Minutes. 

I just think this is bizarre.  I think the general public is going to be very much swayed by her demeanor. 

Will that sway a Senator - probably not.  But in polls Kavanaugh's support has clearly fallen among the public over the last few days.

[MixtyMotions 102]

Will there be a hearing?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-testify/

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Will there be a hearing?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-testify/

Hearing or no hearing, the bottom line is the American people need to hear from Dr. Ford directly.  The venue is irrelevant. 

[MixtyMotions 102]

https://www.predictit.org/Market/4602/How-many-Yea-votes-will-Kavanaugh-receive-in-a-confirmation-vote-by-Oct-31

The betting line has moved $.13 since I looked mid- morning.  Betting on confirmation costs $.56 to get $1.00.  At one point it was something like $.25.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hearing or no hearing, the bottom line is the American people need to hear from Dr. Ford directly.  The venue is irrelevant. 

Bullshit.   The venue is very relevant.  If she’s not willing to be questioned under oath, her words don’t matter.  She asked for the opportunity to do so, and Grassley has bent over backwards.  If she won’t do it now, she’s a fraud.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Bullshit.   The venue is very relevant.  If she’s not willing to be questioned under oath, her words don’t matter.  She asked for the opportunity to do so, and Grassley has bent over backwards.  If she won’t do it now, she’s a fraud.  

If she goes on 60 Minutes compelling and credible, it will have the same influence as testifying in Congress. 

Her audience isn’t those Senators, it’s the American public.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Bullshit.   The venue is very relevant.  If she’s not willing to be questioned under oath, her words don’t matter.  She asked for the opportunity to do so, and Grassley has bent over backwards.  If she won’t do it now, she’s a fraud.  

And Brett Kavanaugh is a liar, and not necessarily about the alleged incident.

 

[Gil Bang 26240]

He's CLEARLY a liar.   He lied like a motherfucker at his introduction after being nominated. 

He sucks. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If she goes on 60 Minutes compelling and credible, it will have the same influence as testifying in Congress. 

Her audience isn’t those Senators, it’s the American public.

Among dumbasses or autistic loons like you it will. Anong anyone else, no way.  

Edited September 25, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[GHOSTUSER 361]

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

Adam Mill

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courtson college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

[Jack Burton 35]

Be a better Christian

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Among dumbasses or autistic loons like you it will. Anong anyone else, no way.  

You are sorely misreading the public on this. He's underwater. He's a drag on the GOP.

[atomheartbevo 90650]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

The fucking losers rarely get a win, and they talk more shit than aggy.  

They're the aggy of the internet

QAnon is an amazing win for them.  That’s pretty much the online equivalent of a national championship, something aggy hasn’t had since before Hitler conquered Poland.  

Whatever else you may think, it's an amazing trolling of Republicans. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

Adam Mill

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courtson college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

Let me guess, a middle aged white guy wrote this?

[happyfunball 481]

Lulz, the federalist. The same group that screened Kavanaugh

Edited September 25, 2018 by happyfunball

[triplehorn 2664]

The guy being credited with finding the wild Kavanaugh defending CRC and its FARA link to the deposed Ukrainian Putin puppet takes a measured view of the significance:

 

He does have an interesting piece pinned at the top of his feed:

Spoiler

 

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let me guess, a middle aged white guy wrote this?

I’m not commenting. Just sharing. Out

[sidis 10017]

other submissions by the author...

Framing Ted Stevens In 2008 Was The Deep State’s Trial Run For Framing Trump

Trump Is Not Only Right To Criticize Jeff Sessions, It’s His Constitutional Duty

Why Russia Should Be Free To Campaign For Or Against Trump On Social Media

If Paying Stormy Daniels Was A Crime, The Clinton Campaign Committed It Too

How Selective Prosecution Biases Elections Against The Right

5 Times Trump People Were Trapped Into Creating Russiagate Narratives

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

6 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

Adam Mill

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courtson college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

 

You don't have to go further than point #1.  Hasn't Ford called for an investigation but professionals trained to investigate?  The FBI.   The Senate Judiciary committee are not investigators but politicians.  

I don't know Kavanaugh's stance on the FBI investigating but he should want it, assuming he feels he is innocent.   Even if he's confirmed, the current opinion by America is that he's an attempted rapist.  

[scottsins 2047]

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

Adam Mill

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courtson college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

Still waiting for your citation in support of the assertion that “SCOTUS has ruled that polygraph evidence has zero probative value.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fucking cowards.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, scottsins said:

Still waiting for your citation in support of the assertion that “SCOTUS has ruled that polygraph evidence has zero probative value.”

I’m still waiting to see what questions she was asked.  If they were legit questions that supporter her credibility, her attorneys would be releasing them.  

The one I’ve seen so far is that the summary of the allegations were accurate.  That means nothing. 

[scottsins 2047]

8 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Lulz, the federalist. The same group that screened Kavanaugh

I think that the two entities are unrelateda that this website is not a medium of communication for the Federalist Society.  I could be wrong though.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fucking cowards.

What’s your problem with this other than you losing the gotcha narrative of old white men questioning a woman.  

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

What’s your problem with this other than you losing the gotcha narrative of old white men questioning a woman.  

Old white men can't do their job?

[atomheartbevo 90650]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If she goes on 60 Minutes compelling and credible, it will have the same influence as testifying in Congress. 

Her audience isn’t those Senators, it’s the American public.

I’d say her audience is women.  

An audience the GOP is really close to driving to the voting booth in even larger numbers in November, than was already predicted.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

What’s your problem with this other than you losing the gotcha narrative of old white men questioning a woman.  

It’s insulting to me as a man that the Republicans are incapable of handling Dr. Ford in a professional and respectful way.

Kinda pathetic your party can’t help but come off like assholes so much they need to hire a woman to do their fucking job.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Old white men can't do their job?

Not as well as someone with expertise on this very issue. This is smart by Grassley. Fuck that narrative. 

[scottsins 2047]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’m still waiting to see what questions she was asked.  If they were legit questions that supporter her credibility, her attorneys would be releasing them.  

The one I’ve seen so far is that the summary of the allegations were accurate.  That means nothing. 

I agree with the importance of the actual questions asked. The issue I was addressing was Iconoclast being the latest graduate of the Rocko School or Law, Wikipedia Campus.

I will say though, that it’s disingenuous to assume as fact that “if they were legit questions...”. Of course, if you subscribe to that school of thought, then it would follow that only a credible person would DEMAND and FBI investigation, and that MORE witnesses be involved.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s insulting to me as a man that the Republicans are incapable of handling Dr. Ford in a professional and respectful way.

Kinda pathetic your party can’t help but come off like assholes so much they need to hire a woman to do their fucking job.

They could do nothing to please you.  They are doing their job by hiring a professional. I know you so bad want the talking point. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

8 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Still waiting for your citation in support of the assertion that “SCOTUS has ruled that polygraph evidence has zero probative value.”

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of lie detector admissibility in a 1998 case, United States v. Scheffer. A military court had decided that exclusion of polygraph evidence violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The high court disagreed: “A fundamental premise of our criminal justice system is that ‘the jury is the lie detector.’” While experts who testify about fingerprints or ballistics can weigh in on matters related to the question of guilt or innocence, a lie detector purports to answer it: Is this person lying or not? Since the polygraph is not consistent or perfect, the high court ruled it out of bounds.

what type of law do you practice? If it’s real estate, I will do your work for you and let you take the credit

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, scottsins said:

I agree with the importance of the actual questions asked. The issue I was addressing was Iconoclast being the latest graduate of the Rocko School or Law, Wikipedia Campus.

I will say though, that it’s disingenuous to assume as fact that “if they were legit questions...”. Of course, if you subscribe to that school of thought, then it would follow that only a credible person would DEMAND and FBI investigation, and that MORE witnesses be involved.

she and her attorneys could release the transcript and disclose what questions were asked.  For some reason they haven’t.  

[scottsins 2047]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Old white men can't do their job?

I kinda feel like I should be able to hold my senators accountable for their words and conduct, but that’s just me.  Also, the willingness to bring in “independent” outsidelegal resources to aid in the SJC “investigation” seems tough to square with “fuck no we can’t have the FBI address this allegation.”

And again, I REALLY want to know if the same attorney will question Kavanaugh.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, scottsins said:

I kinda feel like I should be able to hold my senators accountable for their words and conduct, but that’s just me.  Also, the willingness to bring in “independent” outsidelegal resources to aid in the SJC “investigation” seems tough to square with “fuck no we can’t have the FBI address this allegation.”

And again, I REALLY want to know if the same attorney will question Kavanaugh.

You can. Their conduct is they hired someone better than them with experience on these sex assault cases to question her. 

I’m sure Ted Cruz hates losing your vote over this.  

[scottsins 2047]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of lie detector admissibility in a 1998 case, United States v. Scheffer. A military court had decided that exclusion of polygraph evidence violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The high court disagreed: “A fundamental premise of our criminal justice system is that ‘the jury is the lie detector.’” While experts who testify about fingerprints or ballistics can weigh in on matters related to the question of guilt or innocence, a lie detector purports to answer it: Is this person lying or not? Since the polygraph is not consistent or perfect, the high court ruled it out of bounds.

what type of law do you practice? If it’s real estate, I will do your work for you and let you take the credit

Bless your heart.  Point me to where that case hold that polygraphs have zero probative value?  You do an excellent job of proving that it is not admissible, which no one has claimed otherwise.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I would think the attorney will question both.  

[horncyclist 1391]

Will this questioning be public? Who chooses the question s? Why the change in procedure?

[RomaVicta 30592]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fucking cowards.

Funny. It kinda comes across like the Aggies hiring a black coach who can talk black to black players. Black players will love A&M!

I imagine Mitch in his dynamic speaking style saying, "She's a woman, so we got a woman. She'd been a lesbian woman, we'd a got one them. Not like the evil Dems who ask questions themselves in accordance with their duties on the committee."

Edit to add: I hope they chose this councel/council/counsel as well as they chose Kavanaugh and all those winners who have worked in the White House until driven out of their jobs by personal scandals. I have faith.

Edited September 25, 2018 by RomaVicta

[Johnny Sack 8397]

GOP was smart to hire a female lawyer with sexually asualt as her specialty and hide her identity. This way the old men GOP Senators don’t look like bullies on TV as well as zero fodder for the Dems to use as ammo for ads for November. That is why they don’t want outside counsel - they wanted to bait the GOP Senators but they did not take the bait.

If your client is telling the truth why would it matter who asks the questions?  Unless the whole point of this was to bait senators in the first place.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

Funny. It kinda comes across like the Aggies hiring a black coach who can talk black to black players. Black players will love A&M!

I imagine Mitch in his dynamic speaking style saying, "She's a woman, so we got a woman. She'd been a lesbian woman, we'd a got one them. Not like the evil Dems who ask questions themselves in accordance with their duties on the committee."

Does the duty of the committee include sitting on the Ford allegation since July and then leaking it to the press at the last minute?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My personal view is Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed based on his lack of candor on almost everything.  The saddest part of this process is he’s clearly getting pushed around by the White House.  Going on Fox News and talking about his virginity wasn’t Kavanaugh’s idea.

What I think will happen: Kavanaugh gets pulled  at the last minute before the Thursday’s hearing via him withdrawing due to emotional stress on his family or some other bullshit.

If Thursday’s hearing does go down it will be a public execution of Kavanaugh which gives the Republicans an easy way out of this disaster.  He’s going to get thrown under the bus if the hearing happens.

There’s little to no chance Ford fails to show up, she’s dead set on telling her story to the American people. 

The GOP doesn’t have the votes to confirm Kavanaugh regardless of how Thursday goes.

Kavanaugh is toast, it’s now just a question of how he goes down. 

I’m no social conservative, but it would be just desserts for the Democrats to have Amy Barrett confirmed and for them to truly worry if Roe is going to be overturned.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Does the duty of the committee include sitting on the Ford allegation since July and then leaking it to the press at the last minute?

As if the Republicans had no knowledge of Kavanaugh’s shady past. You’re hilarious 

[scottsins 2047]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You can. Their conduct is they hired someone better than them with experience on these sex assault cases to question her. 

I’m sure Ted Cruz hates losing your vote over this.  

Setting aside the absurd irrelevant Cruz comment (becUse he’s about to make his move)...you would agree with me that they should also have the better, more experienced individual question Kavanaugh too, right?  I really hope they aren’t so ill-advised as to have her only handle Ford’s examination.

Edited September 25, 2018 by scottsins

[RomaVicta 30592]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Does the duty of the committee include sitting on the Ford allegation since July and then leaking it to the press at the last minute?

Johnny. Baby. It was submitted in confidence.

Even if it wasn't, is it wicked for Dems to run the clock when the GOPs are rushing things to the point that due diligence is restricted? Did they break a committee rule? That's the standard the GOPs set, should the Dems fight with one hand?

You're kind of losing it on this one.

Edited September 25, 2018 by RomaVicta

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, scottsins said:

Setting aside the absurd irrelevant Cruz comment (becUse he’s about to make his move)...you would agree with me that they should also have the better, more experienced individual question Kavanaugh too, right?

Absolutely.  

[retread 2951]

 

[Dolemite 143]

First question: What his dick be like?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

12 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Bless your heart.  Point me to where that case hold that polygraphs have zero probative value?  You do an excellent job of proving that it is not admissible, which no one has claimed otherwise.

They are unreliable dipshit, that’s why they aren’t used.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The outsourced questioner thing is weird.   The point of her speaking to the Senate is so that she is able to answer directly to the Senators who are deciding whether to confirm Kavanaugh.   That's literally the only purpose.   Whether some non-Senator attorney satisfies her own concerns about the witness is really irrelevant.