Replies

You wrote:

“I will answer your question, senator, in two parts. The first part, is no. The second part is, you most likely would not ask such an offensive question unless you had evidence of such action on my part, so if you do I suggest you have an obligation to this committee, to the nation as a whole, to my children sitting behind me, and to me, to disclose any such evidence, here, now.”

Very bad advice for anyone who, in this day of false “recovered memories” might find himself/herself under interrogation. First of all, never ever elaborate, “no” or “yes” is enough.

And for heaven’s sake, don’t ever use such a word as “evidence.” That will be twisted to mean you know you have done such a thing and know/suspect there evidence you did so. Say “allegation” if feel you must elaborate which, again, is a very foolish thing to do. Don’t give them anything they can twist and use against you. Don’t give them an opening to start a new line of questioning.

This is how innocent people, trying to clear their names, get into a lot of trouble. There already is a presumption of guilt by the interrogator, and there is nothing you can say or do to make it better but you can easily make it a whole lot worse!

Your opinion might have value if offered to someone who was waiting for his or her attorney to arrive; however, your response in this instance overlooks several points.

Very bad advice for anyone...

First it wasn't advice because it was after the fact and no longer relevant; after what appeared to be a lost opportunity my language was proposed as one of possible responses. Secondly, the language was not proposed for use by just "anyone", it was proposed for use by a preeminently qualified professional who could well have been expected to deliver such a response.

Say “allegation”...Don’t give them an opening to start a new line of questioning."

The event was beyond any allegation phase, this was the exact moment to ask for, in fact demand credible evidence. In lay terms it was the moment to introduce a "put up or shut-up" challenge to what could well be the first element of a time consuming Kavanaugh-like attack. Presumably, the Dems would either have to deny any such attack was under consideration, or clumsily stall on the production of evidence.

In case you missed it, the committee Dems don't need an opportunity to start a new line of questioning, they can start anything they wish no matter how outlandish.

Have a nice evening.