Sunday, September 30, 2018

10 RED FLAGS ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT CLAIMS, FROM AN EMPLOYMENT LAWYER

Adam Mill The Federalist  9-28-18

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.




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.

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unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.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.


Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on 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.


Saturday, September 29, 2018

ROSTER OF  2018  NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ANTI-SEMITIC CANDIDATES,
 not those already in Congress and running for re-election.
 
 Links and summaries provided.  One can click for fuller reports.

5-16-18  Pennsylvania Democratic Congressional Candidate’s Fund Has Donated Hundreds of Thousands to Pro-BDS Groups.
The foundation run by Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate Scott Wallace has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations that promote the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
5-17-18   Dem nominee in Philly district led fund that gave to BDS groups
Scott Wallace co-headed fund that provided tens of thousands of dollars to Jewish Voice for Peace and a tour by George Galloway.
9-19-18    Memo: Dem Candidate Scott Wallace Member of Secretive Soros Club.   Wallace listed as a partner in the Democracy Alliance, the left's biggest dark money network.. Dem candidate is a donor to the big Soros group that advocates against USA/Israel/Jews. 

-----------------
6-27-18   Democratic Socialist who upset NY Rep. Joe Crowley said Israel committed a ‘massacre’ in Gaza
The primary victory of Ocasio-Cortez over Crowley may represent a broader shift in the Democratic Party towards the more progressive wing championed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has strongly condemned Israel’s actions in recent months. 
7-17-18  Hot Democratic Party Congressional candidate calls Israel an "occupier" than admits she knows nothing. 
Ocasio-Cortez Gets Hammered After Anti-Israel Remarks, Admitting Ignorance.
She made comments with anti-Semitic undertones that prompted even left-leaning pundits to express embarrassment over her remarks.
7-31-18   DYNAMIC DUO:  Democratic Party Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez And Linda Sarsour Headline Muslim Association  of America event.  New star of Democratic Party, a liar about Israel, hangs with big name anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour. 

----------------------
8-6-18  Michigan Democratic Party. Congressional Candidate Pushes an Anti-Israel Agenda. Palestinian-American lawyer named Rashida Tlaib, There is no Republican candidate registered in the battle for this congressional seat, so the winner of the Democratic primary will likely be the new US Representative.  
Tlaib won the primary. 
8-12-18  Palestinian Congressional Candidate Tlaib ASSAULTS Jewish Journalist at Political Event  (when asked if she would condemn Hamas and call Hamas a terrorist organization as does the US government). 
8-12-18 Rashida Tlaib assaults a Jewish journalist who asked if Tlaib would condemn Hamas and label it a terrorist organization as the US government does.
8-14-18  Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib Says She Will ‘Absolutely’ Vote Against Aid to Israel
-------------------------

6-11-18   Anti-Israel Ellison's Possible Replacement? Another Israel-Hater.
Democrat Ilan Omar says Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah open up the world's eyes to Israel's evil.  (Ilan Omar won the Democratic Party primary). 
7-9-18   Muslim Democrat running for Congress blames Israel for ‘evil doings’ in Gaza.   In a November 2012 tweet, Ilhan Omar, who is currently a Minnesota state representative, said that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”   
In May, Omar responded to criticism of the 2012 tweet, by accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state.”
7-9-18  Democratic Party Muslim candidate for Congress calls Israel ‘apartheid regime’.  Minnesota Democratic Congressional candidate Ilhan Omar accuses Israel of 'hypnotizing the world.   
N.B.:   Debunking the "apartheid" slander:   Deconstructing 'Israeli Apartheid'

--------------------------

7-30-18  “Moderate” Muslim Gubernatorial Candidate Abdul el-Sayed Campaigns with Vile Anti-Semites, Terror Supporters and Farrakhan Followers
Fortunately, this one lost.
------------------------

8-1-18   70 Democrats in Congress sign J St.'s petition urging Trump to renew aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza - while Hamas is terrorizing Israel. 


8-4-18   Democratic senator compares Israeli security to Mexico wall
Sen. Cory Booker poses with sign linked to anti-Israel movement.
8-6-18     Senator Cory Booker Pals With Anti-Israel BDS Terror-Linked Group
8-18-18    We can read the sign: Cory Booker is dumping Israel
As a Democrat with presidential aspirations, it is understandable that Booker wishes to present his bona fides to the rising left-wing of the party. But the senator took the bait when he (wittingly or not) endorsed the pairing of anti-Israel and human-rights causes.

-------------
8-3-18  UK Labour Party style anti-Semitism takes over the Democratic Party.  The latest sign of the death of moderate Democrats. 

8-27-18 The Democratic Party's new normal:
Munich Massacre Mastermind's Grandson Sets Sights on Congress
(How did this family ever gain admission to the US?)
9-4-18   A Dem. Congressional candidate whose entire family links to Hamas
The U.S. Democratic Congressional  Central Committee endorses and funds a congressional candidate whose entire family links to Hamas.  

Ammar Campa-Najjar, 28, is the Democrat candidate running for congress in California’s 50th Congressional district in the San Diego and El Cajon area. He is the grandson of one of the masterminds of the Munich terror attack staged in 1972 by the PLO faction Black September. Black September was created back then to launch terror attacks not only against Jews in Israel, but to memorialize a failed PLO overthrow of Jordan’s Hashemite Arab kingdom as well as carry out attacks against the United States and EU.  

The Democratic Party Central Committee in California has endorsed Ammar Campa-Najjar for the spot after a primary, sidelining Josh Bentner, another Democrat hopeful and former Navy SEAL as the party candidate who came in second and might still run as an independent.
8-31-18   
Mich. Dem Gubernatorial Candidate Declines to Oppose Israel Boycotts

Running Mate: Sick of people 'kissing Israel's ass'

Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer is coming under scrutiny for declining to take a stance on boycotts of Israel and congressional legislation aimed at cutting funding to groups backing such efforts, raising further questions about her support for Israel in light of her running mate’s earlier support for the Hamas terrorist group and harsh criticism of Israel’s supporters. "She couldn't bring herself to say one word in support of Israel. 
9-2-18   Democratic running mate for governor in Michigan supported Hamas, blasted politicians for ‘kissing Israel’s ass’
A 2009 Tweet reveals that Garlin Gilchrist, the running mate of Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer, wrote: “I‘m suck [sic] of politicians and Evangelicals kissing Israel‘s ass regardless of what they do in the name of ‘defense.’ ”
9-5-18 Michigan Democrat: Hamas legitimate - Israel is the aggressor
Democratic candidate for Michigan Governor refuses to denounce BDS, while running mate has history of anti-Israel statements.

9-6-18   When talking to a Lefty podcaster, Gillum, Florida's candidate for governor lets loose against Israel. 

9-7-18  
Dem Candidate Held Event With Nation of Islam Members Outside Radical Mosque.   Pressley upset Capuano in primary shocker 
Democratic congressional candidate Ayanna Pressley appeared outside a mosque that has played host to numerous radical figures during her primary campaign this year.    Pressley sent yet another shock to the Democratic establishment by defeating ten-term congressman Michael Capuano. 
9-7-18    Dem candidate for Congress, Ayanna Pressley,  supports a House bill introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) that would mandate the U.S. government cut its military assistance to Israel.


9-12-18 Gillum Aligns With Groups That Support Boycotts of Israel
Associations fueling questions from Florida's large pro-Israel community.
He opposes our embassy in Jerusalem, he does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal and indivisible capital, and he even criticizes Israel’s response against Hamas [militants] in May of 2018.
9-12-18  Florida Governor Candidate ‘Proud and Pleased’ With Pro-BDS Group’s Endorsement
9-13-18 Andrew Gillum Encouraged Attendees at CAIR-Hosted Conference Promoting Boycott of Israel
A CAIR-Florida press release from February 12, 2016 documents all. 
9-17-18 Andrew Gillum supported by a nasty Leftists group.  The organization spent $3.5 million helping far Left Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum beat his opponent calls for an "end" to capitalism,  rants against Independence Day (July 4)  and spreads malicious falsehoods about Israel.  The organization, Dream Defenders strongly supports the extremist Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting the Jewish state. Its website labels the entire State of Israel as the “continued settler colonial project.” It pushes the false charges that “Israel was declared on top of stolen Palestinian land, with Zionist militias committing massacres and forced evictions, then immediately ethnically cleansing over 750,000 Palestinians from the lands, and internally displacing thousands more.”
9-21-18Andrew Gillum's Running Mate Claimed Jews 'Nailed' Him To 'The Cross' After He Lost Student Government Election At Harvard


9-14-18  Anti-Semitic pretend Jew, Julia Salazar,  wins Democratic primary for NY State Assembly.  She pretended to be Jewish but is actually a Christian  anti-Zionist activist, affiliated with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), the pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace, the anti-Zionist Mondoweiss, IfNotNow, and—how could she not—Linda Sarsour?

9-14-18   Facing Off In Wisconsin: Self-Hating Jew Vs. Bible-Loving Christian
The Democratic candidate for the 6th Congressional district of Wisconsin is Dan Kohl.  Kohl is a founding member of J Street, an anti-Zionist organization made up of highly liberal Jewish Americans. Recently it has been unequivocally proven that J Street both funds and supports organizations that promote BDS – the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement against Israel.








Thursday, September 27, 2018

The Attack on Kavanaugh Is Un-American
Libby LockeSept. 26, 2018 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-attack-on-kavanaugh-is-un-american-1538002857?mod=?mod=itp&mod=djemITP_h


The Rolling Stone rape hoax illustrated what happens when we adhere to preconceived narratives.


Critics of Judge Brett Kavanaugh at the Hart Senate Office in Washington, Sept. 24.
A reputation is a fragile thing. Last week was a testament to that simple truth. Within hours of being accused of an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated three-decades-old assault, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation as a highly respected jurist with an unblemished personal record was permanently damaged. Many rushed to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty merely because he had been accused. Democrats all too happily called for him to withdraw his Supreme Court nomination, while his accuser’s lawyer basked in the left’s glory for slowing a Supreme Court nomination that seemed a sure thing.

As the #MeToo tidal wave crests, it is crucial to remember what happens when we blindly assume the truth of allegations rather than require evidence and adhere to the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. I have seen firsthand what happens when people mindlessly follow preconceived narratives, disregard evidence, and indiscriminately believe accusers. I represented Nicole Eramo, a dean at the University of Virginia, who was victimized by one of the most notorious false rape accusations in recent history.

Rolling Stone magazine claimed in 2014 that Ms. Eramo had tried to cover up a horrific gang rape at a UVA fraternity. The campus exploded in protest, and Ms. Eramo—who had dedicated her career to helping survivors of sexual assault and had supported the purported victim—became a national villain, receiving public condemnation and death threats.

Although we were ultimately able to vindicate Ms. Eramo publicly, winning a $3 million jury verdict for defamation, we faced the tremendously difficult task of proving what had not happened: that the reported gang rape did not occur, and that Ms. Eramo did not dismiss the accuser’s allegations. That required months of litigation—not to mention the public backlash my law firm endured by daring to ask a purported victim of sexual assault questions about her allegations.

Judge Kavanaugh finds himself in a similar unenviable position: being expected to prove a negative. To vindicate himself in the eyes of those who assume his guilt, he must show that something else happened, for example that he was somewhere else when the incident—whose location is itself unspecified—allegedly occurred. To make matters worse, the purported assault took place before cellphones, text messages, emails—making it hard to find contemporaneous documents to demonstrate the falsity of the claim.

That’s precisely why Democrats have latched onto these allegations—because they are unprovable. It is her word against his. And how dare a white man, from a privileged background, confront his accuser—either himself or through his lawyer. Even if that lawyer is a woman. The left tells us that to do so would be “insensitive” and would “revictimize” her. But with that approach, due process is thrown out the window, all law is politics, and mob rule becomes the standard. It is un-American, and all Americans should be fearful.

Senate Republicans should not have invited Christine Blasey Ford to testify without first requiring her to answer written questions under oath and produce any documents supporting her claims. The polygraph results were finally released Wednesday, but where are those therapist notes? What questions was Ms. Ford asked, and how did she answer them, in each of those settings? What do others—witnesses either to the alleged assault or to Ms. Ford’s recounting of it—have to say about it under oath?

An adversarial process—with testimony by relevant witnesses supported by contemporaneous documents—is the best way to make a determination about Ms. Ford’s and Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility. A he-said-she-said back-and-forth without documents or witnesses will produce nothing except political theater.

Senate Republicans and Democrats—along with the American public—should remember that in civil and criminal settings, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The Senate Judiciary Committee in its advice-and-consent role for Supreme Court nominations should not disregard this bedrock principle of American jurisprudence—it should firmly embrace it. Unless Ms. Ford can satisfy her burden of proof by calling witnesses with contemporaneous knowledge of her claims or producing relevant documents supporting her allegations, Judge Kavanaugh should be presumed innocent and his nomination should be confirmed.

At this point, all we know is that every purported witness denies any knowledge of the party where the assault is supposed to have happened—including a female friend of Ms. Ford’s, who says she doesn’t even know Judge Kavanaugh. Ms. Ford, through her Democratic lawyer, Debra Katz, has only referenced—or produced portions of—very self-serving documents. The American people should be permitted to hear from these witnesses and to review these documents. And they are entitled to answers to other relevant questions to determine whether this is—as many Republicans suspect—merely a political hatchet job.

When did Ms. Ford retain Ms. Katz? Who referred Ms. Ford to Ms. Katz? If this is not a political attack, why did she choose Ms. Katz as her lawyer? What communications did she, or Ms. Katz, have with Senate Democrats before publicly making these allegations? Why did Ms. Ford report her allegation to a Democratic politician, rather than to local law enforcement or to the FBI?

The controversy erupting around the Kavanaugh nomination underlines the power of the #MeToo movement, which is predicated on the idea that the dynamics between the sexes rob women of their power. But anyone still holding to that Victorian notion should have been disabused of it last week.

The circus this process has become demonstrates not only the power of #MeToo but also its potential as a weapon—and how an audience eager for victim narratives and sinister power dynamics can be galvanized without proof to shatter a man’s reputation built over a lifetime of hard work. When preconceived narratives replace the demand for facts and evidence, accusations become self-proving. Don’t be surprised when people with ulterior motives invent false accusations that destroy the innocent.


Ms. Locke is a partner in the law firm Clare Locke LLP, based in Alexandria, Va.
A better title might  be: Will Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski F**k the country ?


The Kavanaugh Standard
Daniel Henninger Sept. 26, 2018

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-standard-1538003069?mod=?mod=itp&mod=djemITP_h



A defeat based on these accusations will divide the country for a generation.


Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a watershed event that will define America’s politics for years. If the Kavanaugh nomination fails because of the accusations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford and others, America’s system of politics, indeed its everyday social relations, will be conducted in the future on the Kavanaugh Standard. It will deepen the country’s divisions for a generation.

The Kavanaugh Standard will hold that any decision requiring a deliberative consideration of contested positions can and should be decided on just one thing: belief. Belief is sufficient. Nothing else matters.

Rape is already a prosecutable crime. Definitions of sexual harassment are undergoing a reconsideration that may yet produce new legal standards to determine liability or suitability for employment. Right now, we are not close to a consensus.

Once the decades-old accusations had been made against Judge Kavanaugh, with no corroboration available or likely, the Senate Judiciary Committee had no practical or formal basis for enlarging the discussion about his nomination. For everyone, the way forward was into a fog.

Then something new happened. Half of the Senate Judiciary Committee created this standard: “I believe Christine.”

It is an inescapable irony that the Kavanaugh Standard—“I believe”—is being established inside the context of a nomination to the highest U.S. court. This new standard for court nominees (and surely others in and outside politics) would be that judgment can be rendered in the absence of substantive argument or any legal standard relating to corroboration, cross-examination or presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Kavanaugh Standard would have less intellectual content than liberalism’s previous judicial gold standard—agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. The new, operative standard, assuming two Republican senators abandon Judge Kavanaugh, will come down to a leap of faith.

For a political cynic, like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein, all these considerations are pointless and irrelevant. Just win, baby. A bloodless political actor such as Sen. Schumer would say: Look, if there’s a problem of some sort with compromised legal standards, we can make adjustments later. They won’t do that.

If Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, this is how they will govern—with belief alone sufficient as justification for imposing policy.

Something like a politics-by-belief emerged with the Obama presidency’s remarkable number of broadly applicable executive orders issued by the Labor, Education and Justice departments and the Environmental Protection Agency. But even these orders, however coercive, permitted challenge as a misreading of available facts. The defeat of this Supreme Court nominee would be simply asserted. It would have about as much political legitimacy as a one-man-rule decree.

I have been wondering what the rest of the nation’s sitting judges are making of the Kavanaugh proceedings. Or more specifically, what Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan think of what they imply for the future of the law’s role in the U.S.

Looking at what has happened recently to university professors accused and then abandoned by their schools and colleagues for alleged racial offenses, or at the spectrum of proof in #MeToo incidents, it is clear that the political and academic left are contesting centuries-old standards of evidence.

Liberal jurisprudence and its arguments with conservatives, for example over Fourth Amendment search cases, is being displaced by a Democratic left—there is no other way to describe it—that prefers rough justice.

Rough justice is what the political left and the media left, notably the New Yorker and New York Times, is meting out to Brett Kavanaugh. Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Hirono has emerged from this hearing as a hero of the new rough justice.

Professors at Yale Law School canceled classes this week so that much of the student body could travel to Washington to support Ms. Ford’s allegations, which suggests that the most popular class at Yale these days must be “Legal Principles from the Stone Age to the 10th Century.” It’s not a joke. In 20 years, a President Ocasio-Cortez will be naming these advocates of faith-based reasoning to the federal appeals courts.

In a more conciliatory atmosphere, one might say that even if the claims of a high-school offense were true, surely there is a case in adulthood for forgiveness. But these are unforgiving times, and that virtue is out the window.

Ultimately, this drama comes down to the choices about to be made by Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. The question is whether the Senate’s advice and consent for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court should be reduced to simple secular belief. More important is that the entire country is watching now, and we’ll find out soon what the American system of law is going to look like for the next 25 years.


Write henninger@wsj.com.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Thank you Mr. President....From an American Jew,

Thank you Mr. President....From an American Jew,

Sam Levine(September 23, 2018 / JNS)

According to a recent report, you are frustrated that the American Jewish community is not more supportive of your presidency. I share in this frustration. So let me say, as an American Jew, thank you Mr. President. Thank you for all you are doing for Israel and the Jewish people.


According to a recent report, you are frustrated that the American Jewish community is not more supportive of your presidency. I share in this frustration. So let me say, as an American Jew, thank you Mr. President. Thank you for all you are doing for Israel and the Jewish people.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories

Thank you for appointing Ken Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center that fights campus anti-Semitism, to the office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. Because of this appointment, Jews on campus facing rising anti-Semitism finally have an advocate in government. Ken is reopening a case regarding Rutgers University allowing discrimination against Jewish students—a case the Obama Administration disregarded. In addition, under your leadership, the U.S. Department of Civil Rights is now adopting the State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which includes demonization, double standards and delegitimization of Israel. This will afford better protections to Jewish students.

The greatest manifestation of anti-Semitism today is hatred of Israel. This is known as the “New Anti-Semitism” where hostility isn’t directed against individual Jews, but towards Israel, the Jewish nation. It is no coincidence that the country most condemned by the United Nations and targeted for boycotts around the world is the only Jewish one. As such, the most effective way one can combat anti-Semitism today is by supporting Israel, something you are doing at unprecedented levels for an American President.

Thank you for moving the American embassy to Jerusalem. According to Allen Estrin, producer of the Dennis Prager talk show, you stated on a phone call with Jewish leaders that of all the decisions you have made, you never received more pressure from world leaders trying to influence you than with this issue. They were all urging you not to make the move and were warning of dire consequences if you did. Despite this, you did the right thing helping to further solidify the indisputable Jewish connection to Jerusalem. And, of course, all the dire predictions were proven false. Very few individuals would have had the courage to make that decision.

Thank you for your actions against the Palestinian Arabs. You wisely pulled America out of the corrupt U.N. “refugee” organization UNRWA, which intentionally perpetuates the conflict, and signed the Taylor Force Act into law, which reduces American aid to the Palestinian Arabs because they subsidize terrorists. As you know, Palestinian Arab children are taught from a young age to hate Jews. Palestinian culture—the schools, sports and entertainment—is drenched in anti-Semitism and veneration of terrorists. Thankfully, you understand this and are taking steps to pressure the Palestinians to reform their society. Only when the Palestinian Arabs end their war against Israel, and recognize its right to exist, will there be peace. Your actions make that more likely.

Thank you Mr. President for pulling America out of the disastrous JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal). This deal enriched the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world with billions of dollars and paved its path to a nuclear weapon. It provided Iran with new resources to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, both committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. Thanks to the new sanctions you are implementing, Iran—a country that regularly calls for a second Holocaust—is less likely to achieve its destructive goals. There should be no greater cause for the Jewish people than preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. You are a true partner in this effort.

For all this and more, from an American Jew, thank you Mr. President.


Sam Levine is a pro-Israel activist living in the Bay Area, Calif.
The Fragile Role Of Memory In The Allegations Against Judge Kavanaugh     Scott Morefield   TownHall 9-24-18

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/09/24/the-fragile-role-of-memory-in-the-allegations-against-judge-kavanaugh-n2521865?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=&bcid=a4767192118c48fd52dfc95945e78962&recip=26163198

.
The Fragile Role Of Memory In The Allegations Against Judge Kavanaugh 
No matter what happens this week, we’ll likely never truly know what exactly, if anything, happened between Christina Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh that night in 1982, or even between the judge and his latest accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who after “carefully assessing her memories” from a drunken college party 35 years ago, has finally decided that it was, indeed, Brett Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her that night.

This isn’t necessarily because Ford and Ramirez are purposefully lying – although they very well could be – but because all the evidence we have, or don’t have, so far seems to suggest that what they are “remembering” from the distant past may not be remotely close to what happened, or didn’t happen, at all.

Much has been mentioned about “believing women” and how “brave” Dr. Ford is to have decided to put her life on hold to come forward with these allegations on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but not nearly enough has been said about the dubiousness of any so-called “memory” possibly dredged up using this extremely controversial pseudoscience.

Which led to my interview, published Sunday, with University of California, Irvine, professor and cognitive psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus, a noted expert in the field of human memory. I ran across Loftus’ work during my research into the controversial practice of psychotherapy after running across the word – and a subsequent tingling of my spidey senses – in the original Washington Post piece about Ford’s accusation.

I wanted to know more, and I wanted to know if she had any “red flags” when seeing the word as well. 

“Yeah,” she told me, laughing. “Because I still feel that there’s a chance that continued psychotherapy beyond the initial disclosure session could have resulted in what it sometimes does - developing the story, making it more coherent, adding details. But did those details get developed in psychotherapy? And again, we don’t know ... You can have intelligent, educated people who develop distorted memories. It could happen to any of us.”

“It is certainly possible that it wasn’t quite as frightening or as violent as she’s now describing it and as people are now refer to it, as a violent attempted rape,” continued Dr. Loftus on the possibility that Ford could have also somehow “amplified” something that happened - such as a misplaced grope or an awkward kiss - into something more sinister. “It’s possible that it got more extreme in the course of her thinking about it.”

Thankfully, especially for those who have been accused and even convicted on the basis of a false memory, much has recently been written on the subject. 

In a Wired article from July 2017 entitled, “False memories and false confessions: the psychology of imagined crimes,” Emma Bryce writes about London South Bank University criminal psychologist Julie Shaw, who “studies how false memories arise in the brain and applies it to the criminal-justice system.”

“Contrary to what many believe, human memories are malleable, open to suggestion and often unintentionally false. ‘False memories are everywhere,’ [Shaw] says. ‘In everyday situations we don't really notice or care that they're happening. We call them mistakes, or say we misremember things.’ In the criminal-justice system, however, they can have grave consequences.”

Among the “red flags” Shaw looks for in cases she works: “who the accuser was with when they recalled the memory, what questions they were asked and whether in other circumstances, such as therapy, somebody could feasibly have planted the seed of a memory that took root in their minds.”

“Finally, Shaw looks for claims that the memory resurfaced suddenly, out of the blue, which can point to repressed memories,” Bryce wrote. “... a discredited Freudian concept that supports the premise that dredging up supposedly forgotten memories can explain a person's psychological and emotional turmoil, but scientifically, it's unsubstantiated.”

Sound familiar?

The Wired article details several cases where defendants were fingered and convicted based on the false or repressed memories of a witness, only to be overturned later when irrefutable evidence emerged. 

Additionally, the book Miscarriage of Memory, published in 2010, includes: “Thirteen [British] case histories, from over 2000 on record at the BFMS, where allegations of historic child sexual abuse involved evidence based on uncorroborated ‘memories’, often newly ‘recovered’ during therapy.”

And there’s plenty more on the subject, like here, and here. 

“Typically such cases occur when a vulnerable individual seeks help from a psychotherapist for a commonly occurring psychological problem such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and so on,”  wrote Chris Smith for The Guardian in 2010. “At this stage, the client has no conscious memories of ever being the victim of childhood sexual abuse and is likely to firmly reject any suggestion of such abuse. To a particular sort of well-meaning psychotherapist, however, such denial is itself evidence that the abuse really did occur.”

“Just because someone is telling you something in a lot of detail and with a great amount of confidence doesn’t mean it happened,” said the aforementioned Dr. Loftus in 2014. 

“Although our memories seem to be a solid, straightforward sum of who we are, strong evidence suggests that memories are actually quite complex, subject to change, and often unreliable,” writes Psychology Today on the topic of false memories. “We reconstruct memories as we age and also as our worldview changes. We falsely recall childhood events, and through effective suggestion, can even create new false memories. We can be tricked into remembering events that never happened, or change the details of things that really did happen. Malleable memory can have especially dire consequences in legal settings; highlighted areas of interest are children as eyewitnesses, sexual abuse, and misidentification.”

“To quote the American Psychological Association, there is ‘little or no empirical support’ for the concept of repressed or dissociated memories of sexual abuse,” wrote Psychology Today’s Temma Ehrenfeld in a 2015 piece about the repression of childhood memories. “False memories are well-documented in legal history. We are vulnerable to what psychologists call ‘suggestion’ and can innocently construct false or ‘pseudomemories’ of events that never occurred, if they are encouraged by someone we trust. One disturbing 2007 study found that when people recalled sexual abuse in childhood during therapy their account was less likely to be corroborated by other evidence than when the memories came without help. Sadly, well-meaning therapists have done their patients harm.”

Finally, this Associated Press article destroys the concept of “confidence” being an indicator of truth and shows how perception at the time can lead to honesty from both parties, but not truth. 

“Your beliefs and expectations shape what you perceive in your life and how you later remember those events, researchers say. 'You are constructing the reality out there as it happens, and therefore you get stuck with that ... as the most accurate you can have for your memory,' said David Rubin, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. 'That's all you have to base your memory on.'

“So in a situation where a woman fears being raped by a man, her memories might be shaped by that fear into a recollection that overestimates the threat, whereas the man might consider it 'just playing around' and simply forget it later on, Rubin said. And both could be completely honest about their recollections.”

All this, to be sure, is a lot to remember as Christine Ford and Deborah Ramirez share their own memories. But how it’s all interpreted in the end will certainly be memorable, as history literally hangs in the balance.