Ford Friend McClean Refutes Polygraph Claim of Ford's Ex-Boyfriend

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I really don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds on this. I was drawing a loose comparison to make a point how conflicting accounts with exactly as much evidence in support of them are treated differently, subject to confirmation bias.

But it is necessary, because you're making a false comparison when you equate (passively or otherwise) an alleged attempted rape/sexual assault that has no substantiating evidence to an unsubstantiated claim that Dr. Ford coached someone about lie detector tests. The difference matters, at least to me, and that's why I called it out--how and why things are remembered and the emotional impact that it may have is a relevant thing.

Keep in mind, though, that Ms. McLean didn't exactly refute the ex-boyfriend's claim, as I discuss in my OP
here. Like I said, the weeds matter, but if you don't want to go down that road, so be it.

No, I'm neither condemning nor replacing anything. I think they reasonably carry about the same weight.

I beg to differ, because there are different motivations that could lead each to be false, but only one participating party is a legal expert and knows how to deny without actually denying.

I'm not saying that Ms. McLean is a liar, but I have reason to suspect her more than the ex-boyfriend for a couple reasons, which is why I say that the weight of their claims don't really balance out.

At least we agree that the polygraph-coaching issue is another irrelevant issue, but as I note in that other thread, it's just yet another example of how 'the weeds' matter in these types of issues. That thread is based on the last point in my comment to which you replied here.

Or your suspicions are wrong. You're asserting that she basically framed her statement so that it would be technically true while remaining open to a favorable interpretation — which would imply a reluctance to lie in a public statement. We could therefore assume that if she were in fact reluctant to lie in a public statement, she would be even more adverse to lying to the FBI, lying to Congress or perjuring herself — which are all crimes.

My suspicions could be wrong, sure, but my assessment of how she worded her "denial" is not. I have been a part of the legal field working directly with prosecutors for more than a decade of my 39-year life, so I can spot this behavior and ways of speaking from a mile away.

Attorneys--especially prosecutors--know exactly what they're doing with every single word that they officially speak in their lives. There is no way that how she worded her "denial" was unintentional, unless she's just not good at what she does.

What I'm asserting is that her denial is not a denial of the issue at hand, but framed in an intentional way as to NOT deny what is being claimed against her. It is, however, worded in a way that the "headline readers," as I'll call them, won't notice and assume that she's denying the issue at hand.

It's Legal Doublespeak 101, and it's no accident, for sure.

Seems like this could be cleared up simply enough by having the FBI interview her, no?

No, I don't believe that anything would be cleared up at all, nor do I believe that this FBI investigation was necessary. The results, apparently, are about what I expected: More of the same non-evidence and lack of corroboration. A magical interview with a former FBI attorney who wasn't present for the alleged assault isn't going to blow away all of that.

But, if after this all blows over, you want the FBI to investigate Dr. Ford on perjury charges, there would be a perfect reason to interview Ms. McLean...and I might back you on that, too.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Hold, up. You gave me grief about using he dictionary and legal definitions for due process earlier and you link me a campus sexual misconduct opinion produced by Cornell as your opinion? The friggin irony.

If you would have read it, which you didn't, it discusses proposed changes to legislation, you know, LAWS, to modify the legal aspects of Title IX in relation campuses and how they handle accusations of sexual misconduct.

Guess you don't have a way to implement due process outside the legal system afterall since this opinion piece specifally disucsses the legal system and due process.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: neutronflux

Don’t you have to have charges filled against you to be accused?

I'm fairly certain Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault without charges filed.

Then if there are no charges failed, then there is no due process according to the law. Public opinion is that, public opinion. Not a means to declare a person innocence or guilty. Want to talk about the allegations of rape and the Duke lacrosse case for example?

Because of public opinion, Kavanuagh will always have an element of the public believing he is guilty on unfounded accusations. Not because charges were brought against him.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: neutronflux

You feel that way about all the allegations about Obama and Hillary?

We will see if they reopen investigations..... but if there is no day in court, then they are not guilty. But I am not going to donate to the Clinton foundation.

But I do think the system found groups were unfairly targeted by the IRS. Is that false. I do think The Obama Administration lost some battles in the Supreme Court. Is that false. And Obama appointees were fired for misconduct. Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Want to talk about the allegations of rape and the Duke lacrosse case for example?

You should because the players who were falsely accused were prepared to file civil suits and sue the hell out of Duke using, what is that called now, oh yeah, due process and got a payout from the university for the way that this was handled. If they would have settled with the town, who offered the three of them $5,000,000, instead of suing for $30,000,000, they would have had an additional payout.

“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.”

Responses like these always leave me questioning. It seems oftentimes guilty people make absolute, or extreme, statements such as these. The answer can't be "No, Christine did not help assist or prepare me for my polygraph exam", it has to be more dramatic than that.

This isn't a rule, and I know people telling the truth can respond dramatically as well. Just my thought based on experiences with people in general.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hold, up. You gave me grief about using he dictionary and legal definitions for due process earlier and you link me a campus sexual misconduct opinion produced by Cornell as your opinion? The friggin irony.

If you would have read it, which you didn't, it discusses proposed changes to legislation, you know, LAWS, to modify the legal aspects of Title IX in relation campuses and how they handle accusations of sexual misconduct.

Guess you don't have a way to implement due process outside the legal system afterall since this opinion piece specifally disucsses the legal system and due process.

Look, I'm not disputing the fact that due process needs to be legally protected, or that one's recourse to being denied a fair hearing shouldn't be taken up in a court of law. I'm not arguing otherwise. What I've always disputed was your assertions that:

Due process, in the context of giving someone their 'fair chance', applies to trials.

Is a university disciplinary hearing a trial? What about a highschool suspension? Yet the supreme court ruled that even highschool students who were suspended are entitled to minimal due process.

The "friggin irony" is I have to explain what due process is, its history, what it means to someone pretending to be an expert in law. Even your own definitions refuted you. Schools do not have legal proceedings. They aren't legal bodies. Yet the supreme court ruled students were entitled to certain procedures of due process in their disciplinary hearings.

Of course, contrary to your snarky response, I wasn't linking to that paper as my opinion. I stated my opinion quite clearly, and merely offered supplemental material since you've treated my responses with utter disregard. The irony is is you don't know what irony is, because it is still you and no one else appealing to laws and definitions.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Is a university disciplinary hearing a trial?

Nope.

What about a highschool suspension?

Nope.

Yet the supreme court ruled that even highschool students who were suspended are entitled to minimal due process.

The Supreme Court!!! Really? Aren't those the people who deal with judicial decisions? Link the specific case of the three main ones you want to discuss.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Goss Vs Lopez is the one was referring to.

The Supreme Court!!! Really? Aren't those the people who deal with judicial decisions? Link the specific case of the three main ones you want to discuss.

Yes. Know who doesn't deal with judicial decisions? High School disciplinarians. Yet they have to follow at least some due process according to the case I linked to above.

Why don't you bring up the little definition you provided and see if it lives up to your own scrutiny? Your standard of proving what something is or means directly refutes your assertions. The question is, will your mind change based on this?

The difference between the exboyfriend and Ford, is that Ford waited till the very last moment to make her accusations.

This Trump Hating democrat, bernie supporter waited till the very last moment to make her accusations decades after the fact

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 9, 2018, filling the vacancy left by the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. When nominated, Kavanaugh was a sitting judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing on September 4.[1] During the confirmation process, Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford thirty-six years prior, while they were both in high school in 1982.-wiki

Highly opportunistic.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But it is necessary, because you're making a false comparison when you equate (passively or otherwise) an alleged attempted rape/sexual assault that has no substantiating evidence to an unsubstantiated claim that Dr. Ford coached someone about lie detector tests. The difference matters, at least to me, and that's why I called it out--how and why things are remembered and the emotional impact that it may have is a relevant thing.

Isn't it self-evident that an allegation of attempted rape is not equatable to a claim of having witnessed a person "coaching" another about the ins and outs of a polygraph?

I wasn't comparing the ex-BF's claim to any specific allegation. In fact, what I had in mind when I wrote it was along the lines of what acquaintances have said they recall of Kavanaugh's behavior that contradicted his testimony. His college roommate's statements regarding his drinking for instance.

Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

And it's not that I mind poring over minutiae — I just wasn't looking to get into a drawn out discussion of Ford's allegation vs the ex-BF's because they're not particularly comparable but now I understand why you felt that necessary.

Hopefully I've assuaged your concerns and we can now stipulate that neither of us view the two as being comparable.

Keep in mind, though, that Ms. McLean didn't exactly refute the ex-boyfriend's claim, as I discuss in my OP here. Like I said, the weeds matter, but if you don't want to go down that road, so be it.

I don't know how much more road there is to go down as you made your point clearly enough the first go around. I acknowledge the possibility.

At least we agree that the polygraph-coaching issue is another irrelevant issue, but as I note in that other thread, it's just yet another example of how 'the weeds' matter in these types of issues. That thread is based on the last point in my comment to which you replied here.

It's of no particular relevance to the accusation made by Ford but the ex-BF's statement is being used to question Ford's credibility. Full disclosure: I have my own questions about Kavanaugh's credibility based on among other things, statements from former classmates which tend to contradict his responses about his partying. But for me at least, this is mostly a distinct issue from Ford's allegation.

My suspicions could be wrong, sure, but my assessment of how she worded her "denial" is not. I have been a part of the legal field working directly with prosecutors for more than a decade of my 39-year life, so I can spot this behavior and ways of speaking from a mile away.

Fair enough. Point taken (again).

No, I don't believe that anything would be cleared up at all, nor do I believe that this FBI investigation was necessary. The results, apparently, are about what I expected: More of the same non-evidence and lack of corroboration. A magical interview with a former FBI attorney who wasn't present for the alleged assault isn't going to blow away all of that.

Not sure how that's responsive to what I said, which was this:

Or your suspicions are wrong. You're asserting that she basically framed her statement so that it would be technically true while remaining open to a favorable interpretation — which would imply a reluctance to lie in a public statement. We could therefore assume that if she were in fact reluctant to lie in a public statement, she would be even more adverse to lying to the FBI, lying to Congress or perjuring herself — which are all crimes.

Seems like this could be cleared up simply enough by having the FBI interview her, no?

Clearly the sentence referred to the paragraph which preceded it which was not about Ford's allegation but rather your suspicions about McLean's statement.

This OP hasn't aged well,

McLean has now been accused by Keyser of pressuring her to change her story. Witness tampering.

I think we can safely say that McLeans denial of her polygraph training from Dr Fraud is a lie.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip


You are aware that public schools are the government, right? The Constitution covers this and it isnt the court of public opinion.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
This has become such a beautiful disaster to watch plop out.

Yeah, the Dems really dropped that Dookie into the toilet! LOL!

Now a new friend refutes the claim that this new friend is lying when he refuted the claim of Ford's ex boyfriend statement who is originally telling the truth