Words Matter: The Ex-Boyfriend Versus The Friend (McClean)

Okay, everyone, I'm posting this because, as I watch people who don't speak 'the legal language' try and argue over the whole Kavanaugh issue, a new sideshow has evolved over the past couple days:

Ex-Boyfriend's (EBF) Statement (which was not written with the "under the penalty of perjury" language):

"During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be her life-long best friend. During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney's Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."

Ms. McLean's Statement (which was not made "under the penalty of perjury nor was it directly made by McLean herself, but distributed through Dr. Ford's legal team):

“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.”

So, there you have it--a direct claim about someone, and a direct refutation of the claim.

Or is it really? Let's examine EBF's claim, specifically what he says about the WHY behind the alleged coaching of McLean, with some underlining:

"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam."

See, what EBF is doing here is noting that, from his memory of the even, that the preparation was for a potential polygraph exam, not an impending or guaranteed exam that was definitely happening to McLean. This point matters, as I'll note shortly.

Now let's look a bit more closely at McLean's statement, with some underlining:

“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.”

See, what McLean is doing--and remember, she's a seasoned attorney--is making a statement that denies any coaching ONLY for polygraph examinations that she has had to take. What she isn't doing is making a broad claim, which would replace the underlined portion with something tantamount to, "... that I have or may have suspected that would need to take at anytime."

She purposefully narrowed her carefully worded statement to apply only to polygraph exams that she has ever taken--and she probably has taken zero.

So, this brings up some pertinent points and questions, such as:

- Was she ever coached for polygraph exams that she DID NOT have to take?

- Did EBF know if McClean did or did not ever take a polygraph exam in conjunction with her employment?

- Why would an attorney carefully word her denial of a claim so narrowly?

- Why wouldn't an attorney release this denial as a sworn statement versus a loose denial release through someone else's legal team?

- What do either have to gain from lying in this instance, and if anything, who stands to gain the most?

- Most people looking at this stuff fail to see or understand how much wording actually matters in these types of issues.

Look, I'm not here to say one is telling the truth and one is not, but I do believe that one party to this issue has a very limited understanding of the legal system and of making statements versus the other, so it leaves me suspect as to why the seasoned veteran of legal matters would make an unnecessarily narrow denial if EFB isn't making a valid claim.

I certainly know what I might glean from such a purposefully narrow denial, though, knowing the attorney mindset as I do.

Anyhoo, something to consider--these nuances, at least from people who are attorneys or are being coached by them, really do matter.

Devil in the details, especially when lawyers are involved.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


lol. You have to love how they try to get around a lie.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Anyhoo, something to consider--these nuances, at least from people who are attorneys or are being coached by them, really do matter.

Considered... and... well...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Kavanaugh got mad at being railroaded though. He should learn to just take it. #Unfit because #WomenLiesMatter

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Kudos on bringing this issue up. I did not catch that until you pointed it out. Amazing catch!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Kavanaugh got mad at being railroaded though. He should learn to just take it. #Unfit because #WomenLiesMatter

Like it’s been said... had he taken a measured approach and showed no emotion while dissecting the charges against him it would have been “what kind of emotionless sociopathic monster is this guy... if someone was alleging blah blah blah against me I would have come out guns a blazin”...

It doesn’t matter what Republicans do to appease these idiots it’s never going to be enough or the correct thing... they remind me of my ex-wife... I could have her write out everything she wanted me to do... and do it all to a “T” exactly the way she wanted... and no matter what she’d inevitably find fault with all of it... I’d go to the list and say “here’s what you wanted... here’s what I did... I didn’t deviate whatsoever”... at which point inof course was “picking on her and yelling”...

Republican need to start steam rolling these idiots and remember what was done to them when the shoe was on the other foot and “elections had consequences”... 🤨🖕

a reply to: FamCore

The problem is, it's really not THAT amazing of a catch--I see this everywhere I look. It was in the Strzok/Page debacle, the Comey debacle, the McCabe debacle, etc...(I just wanted to use FBI issues to keep with the OP subject matter).

But it's not, at all, just limited to how "the left" deals with things, either. It's everywhere, and only trained people who have poured over legalese and legal subject matter catch as a second language.

I see it everywhere, to include how questions are phrased (soooooooo much 'leading the witness' in the recent hearings from both side, even if it's allowed and not a court proceeding) in many instances.

It's exceptionally tiresome, but like you imply, it's worth pointing out because far too many people don't see it or speak the language.

As an aside, this probably helps explain how I type here on ATS most of the time--this type of attention to language is engrained in my daily life, and I sometimes forget that not all people pay it the heed that it deserves, which is why I get frustrated with people quite often who put words in my mouths because they don't actually really read what I'm saying.

But, glad I could help

a reply to: SwissMarked

Actually, the Repubs are handling this very well--in essence, and just like the prosecutor at the hearing, they're letting the Dems' poorly designed tactic play out in the face of an expected shutting down of the process. In doing so, it's like the oft-used tactic proves true more often than not: Just let the guilty part keep talking uninterrupted and they will reveal the truth on their own.

The Repubs have derailed the Dem's tactic by appeasing things like hearings and FBI investigations, and in doing so, you see the result. Even this morning, I had the news on and it switched to Good Morning America, and they were talking about Sen. Feinstein already being suspect to the thoroughness of the asked-for investigation...

...before even having a chance to read the FBI report.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Very careful wording can help one avoid perjury while at the same time maintaining a lie. In this example the sleight of hand is so benign a difference that someone can say the claim was refuted when, after closer examination, it clearly wasn't.

Good find.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SwissMarked

Actually, the Repubs are handling this very well--in essence, and just like the prosecutor at the hearing, they're letting the Dems' poorly designed tactic play out in the face of an expected shutting down of the process. In doing so, it's like the oft-used tactic proves true more often than not: Just let the guilty part keep talking uninterrupted and they will reveal the truth on their own.

The Repubs have derailed the Dem's tactic by appeasing things like hearings and FBI investigations, and in doing so, you see the result. Even this morning, I had the news on and it switched to Good Morning America, and they were talking about Sen. Feinstein already being suspect to the thoroughness of the asked-for investigation...

...before even having a chance to read the FBI report.

Yeah... I loved all the talking heads everywhere saying “this prosecuted they brought in is the most ineffective farce and she’s only there for cover of 11 old white men blah blah blah”... and it wasn’t just the left deriding her it was also morons like Chris Wallace that couldn’t (somehow) see where it was all going...

When she started asking questions about the polygraph seemingly “out of the blue” it was one of those “ahhhhhhh shat... here comes the perjury trap”... but 99% of people didn’t see it or get it while sitting in their ivory towers of esteemed journalism pretending they’re smarter than the rest of us...

I’ve been thoroughly enjoying watching the Dems and morons like Flake set themselves up for fall after fall after fall... Schumer and Feinstein this morning were spectacularly epic fails and then they walk away without answering a single question... could you imagine the hugging and puffing they’d do if Trump took the same approach...

This is all going to blow up in their faces epically and make the tears of 2016 seem like a light morning misting compared to the torrential downpour on the horizon... 😜👍

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Very careful wording can help one avoid perjury while at the same time maintaining a lie. In this example the sleight of hand is so benign a difference that someone can say the claim was refuted when, after closer examination, it clearly wasn't.

Good find.

It’s all Katz and Bromwich got... they’ve grown so arrogant from getting away with everything for so long they don’t realize everyone can see them stuffing the rabbit into the hat before they try to pull it out... and finally having the balls to call them out on it...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

never encounted a polygraph interview - we dont use them here [ UK ]

but - if they are being used as part of security vetting procedures for " alplabet soup " agencies :

are there specific penalties for " cheating " - and or a " rules sheet " of what you can // cannot do in advance of // during a polygraph interview ?????

i ASSUME that taking or testing positive for a number of drugs would be illegal

i has done a quick google - but cannot find any usefull official documents

my point is - could ms mclean be " crucified " - if she admitted that she had preped a test ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I don't have the answers to your questions on polygraph tests, but I do know from having talked to people who work on our forensic lab who are polygraphers that they know and are trained on all of the techniques to try and mess up the testing, but being employed by an anonymous alphabet agency (for which I have never had to take a polygraph test for employment nor been coached on them prior to possible employment).

Yes, coming up hot on a piss test would violate rules and standards for employment.

As for Ms. McLean being crucified simply for being prepped for a test...well, no, because like I noted, she (a) didn't present her statement in a signed, under-penalty-of-perjury format, and (b) it was worded in such a way as to not have really denied the ex-boyfriend's claim anyhow.

Now, if it comes out that she made her statement with intent to deceive specifically to cover for Dr. Ford so that she doesn't come up on perjury charges herself, then yes, that becomes a legal issue, but for a different reason than just changing her story. It's all about the intent, and intent is often very hard to prove, but that said, since she's an attorney and knows exactly what she's doing in these matters, that makes it a little easier in that regard.

Side note: Polygraph examinations are not admissible in court (you probably knew that), and are proving so useless of a tool that in our lab, our two polygraphers have not had a case in two years.

#YourTaxDollarsAtWork

a reply to: ignorant_ape

No everyone preps. It only hurts Ford. McClean is alleged to have tried to tamper with a witness though in this case.

a reply to: SwissMarked

Looks like those 2 shysters are out of their comfort zones.

💥🥁💥

Imagine for a second if you will, if you did what these hoes did, now imagine your cell.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SwissMarked

Looks like those 2 shysters are out of their comfort zones.

💥🥁💥

It's only going to get worse for them... Grassley now has a huge hard on for the two of them and it's not going to go away until he royally screws them... if your client is an innocent victim why would you hide things that would show her to be such... that's right... you wouldn't... and they are... the only thing I look forward to more than Bromwich and Katz going down is Perkins Coie getting raided and Avanatti in a jumpsuit...

a reply to: SwissMarked

Both would make excellent commissary inventory clerks.

They have the required experience. 😃

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SwissMarked

Both would make excellent commissary inventory clerks.

They have the required experience. 😃

Bromwich will make an excellent "girlfriend" for someone... they love lawyers in prison... especially when they say they aren't there to give free legal advice... I know one that went away for vehicular manslaughter... begged for solitary after the first week and had more transfers than a cross town bus ride...

These people need to be made an example of... this revolving door or horsecrap needs to end... look at the Clinton's and ObaMao's... all disbarred so what do they do... what all lying scumbags that can no longer ply their trade do... dive into politics...