Old and busted: “F*ck off.  Come back with a warrant.”

New hotness: “If you don’t demand the FBI investigate you, that is evidence of guilt.”

“If you are innocent, you have nothing to hide” is a principle of totalitarian societies, not ours.

At this point I’d like to remind Senate Democrats that multiple courts have upheld the idea that refusing to consent to a search is not probable cause for a search.

They have seemed to jump right over that into “prove you are not guilty by asking law enforcement to search you.”  That’s dangerous territory.

Remember: don’t talk to the police without a lawyer.

Since this is the path that these people want to go down, I hereby demand that every Senate Democrat, and the idiots online repeating this talking point, ask the IRS to audit them just to prove that they did not cheat on their taxes.

I’m sure they’d like the results.



Spread the love

By J. Kb

19 thoughts on “How ’bout that 4th Amendment?”
  1. ” New hotness: “If you don’t demand the FBI investigate you, that is evidence of guilt.” ”

    ” Remember: don’t talk to the police without a lawyer. ”

    Actually, that’s a 5th amendment issue, not a 4th amendment issue, but yea. Totalitarian societies require person to prove their innocence.

    But this isn’t about truth, or justice, or criminal prosecution. This is about scoring political points, motivating the base, delaying the vote until a hoped-for blue wave in the fall.

  2. Not surprising at all. These totalitarian a-holes have no respect for the Constitution at all. None. That is why they want our guns taken away, they know they can’t complete their takeover and the subsequent purges if we a the tools to fight back.

  3. Start using THEIR tactics against them. I am really tired of this garbage. America needs to get off her ass and call them out. It IS happening to a point… this Kavinaugh thing is blowing up in the dumbacrats face. I am scared that idiots will vote for dumbacrats and we will lose way to much we have gained . We the People can not afford to have dumbacrats back in power. If we hold onto the house and senate it would be a good time to start voting out more of the swamp creatures

  4. This isn’t going to be popular here but I tell you what, if 5-0 came to my door and said your neighbor is saying that you slashed the tires of his car last night and I damn well didn’t do it or would even think of doing it, I’d be getting whatever evidence I had to dispute it. Hell, I would even volunteer to take a polygraph test to clear my name. I wouldn’t just stand there and refuse to say anything to them before I called my lawyer.

    Something is not right here. Guy is applying to be a Supreme Court Justice. Someone is accusing him of sexual assault. He should be demanding a polygraph. Demanding a full and complete FBI investigation. He should be hoping that said investigation will determine that this is a political hit job. He should be outraged that his name has been smeared.

    Instead he’s spending his days at the White House strategizing with Roger Ailes protege Bill Shine about what he’s going to say.

    Something is not right.

    1. Nonsense. We know the purpose of the attack is to delay delay delay. So it makes perfect sense for the nominee not to agree to anything that will further that goal.
      As for taking a polygraph test, you must be suffering from the impression that those are error free. Since they are psychobabble tools, that is most definitely not true. Go right ahead and stick your neck out, but don’t ask us to agree that your approach is a good idea.
      On an FBI investigation, there have been a number of excellent discussions about that. FBI doesn’t investigate state crimes. Background investigations, which is what the FBI does do for nominations, involve collecting input, NOT analyzing there merit or accuracy. Analysis is the job of the Senate, that’s what the Constitution says. So when Dems ask for the FBI to “investigate” they know that they are asking for something that isn’t done, and the fact that they are asking is proof that their purpose is not truth but delay and confusion.

    2. LOL Frank. In the face the total lack of *any* eyewitnesses, physical evidence, coherent timeline or even a consistent story yet you are “concerned.” GTFO.

    3. Frank, I accuse you of high treason and heresy. The crime you are accused of occurred thirty years ago, but I can’t remember where or when, I never mentioned the crimes at all until it was politically advantageous for me to do so, and I work for a bunch of people who hate your guts. These are very serious crimes, though, so I expect you to treat them with the utmost seriousness.
      You’d better put your whole life on hold to refute this accusation by some total stranger, or it’ll make me think you are guilty.

    4. Frank, let’s set aside the Kavanaugh nomination for now, and get serious . . .

      I say this as a former prosecutor, and a current defense attorney.

      When YOU are the subject of the accusation, it is almost never in your interest to talk to law enforcement. When accused of something, my considered advise is to simply generally deny wrongdoing, and refuse to answer any further questions. Politely. Demand an attorney. Politely.

      And NEVER, NEVER consent to any search.

      Let’s be clear: when that officer hauls you to the station to “interview” you, he’s not there to get the truth. Actual truth is often objectively unknowable; many cases are the proverbial he/she said. What the officer hopes to get from you during that “interview” is a confession. He’s trained in psychological manipulation to get it, and he can legally lie to you. And will.

      And “truth” and “confession” are not the same thing.

      A polygraph is not a lie detector, and there is a reason it is not admissible in any court. What it is, is an interrogation technique; a means of applying pressure. I have handled cases where my client “passed” the polygraph, but the officer lied to him and told him that he failed, and used that “failure” to extract a confession (which itself may or may not be reliable).

      Watch and learn: http://www.nielshoven.com/2008/07/14/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-cops-in-praise-of-the-fifth-amendment/

      When they are conducting an investigation where YOU are the subject, the police are not your friend.

      In a majority of my cases, my client has screwed themselves before I’m ever on board, before I’ve seen a single police report. the most common reason: they won’t shut up.

      Take my advice. Shut up.

      1. Warning: I do not agree with the videos. If you are involved in a defensive shooting, the cops arrive and you stay mum, they will automatically assume you are the guilty party. You don’t have to be a Cathy chatty, but not establishing from the get go you were the attacked party leaves the report to te imagination of people who were not there when it happened and have the desperate need to end their shifts ASAP.


        1. I think that the “don’t talk to the police” precludes situations when you are the one calling the police, i.e. after a shooting. I was always given the advice that if you shoot, call the cops. Even if someone else ready did, and inform them that you shot and what you look like so that the cops don’t roll up and assume you are the perp.

          However, if the police knock on your door and say “Miguel, we’d like to ask you some questions about an incident you might have been involved in” then you get a lawyer first.

    5. Unequivocal denial from the accused and from two supposed witnesses isn’t enough?

      There’s a reason for statutes of limitation, and this is a prime example. There are reasons for the presumption of innocence, and this is also a prime example of that.

    6. @Frank

      Investigate what exactly? Ford cannot name a place or time, and all other named witnesses have zero recollection of the event. The event was almost 40 years ago. Seriously, where would an investigation even start?

      And if those were the actions you would take you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our justice system works. If you are accused and you feel you need a positive defense, you of course gather evidence. . .and share it with your lawyer, not the police. The police are required to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you are not required to prove your innocence. You may think the evidence you volunteer is exculpatory, but if the police think otherwise it will be used against you. That is why you give it to your lawyer so they can decide what the best course of action is.

      Everyone calling for him to support an investigation does not realize that that is a stupid thing for him to do, and a judge sitting on the supreme court should not be in the habit of making stupid legal decisions.

    7. I take you have never taken a polygraph. You can be completely telling the truth and totally fail a polygraph. Passing or failing a polygraph is more of a determination of the polygrapher running the test. There is a major reason of why a polygraph isn’t admissible in court and appears in the skeptic’s dictionary.

      Here are a few points to consider:
      Do all people respond the same way to questions or stress?
      If a person is passionate about their innocence would they show as a fail to the question?

      A polygraph is a psychological trick really. Here is a quick overview of the process. Unlike the movies there are no starting control questions. What happens is the process begins with an interview/interrogation where the polygrapher tries to get the person taking the test off balance and troubled. This makes them more able to be manipulated.

      Once they have them in the mode they want they do a practice test where they have the person tell the truth and lie. While the polygraph may not show anything they polygrapher will lie and say that when you lie the polygraph shows such and such. Of course, they aren’t going to let you see that. They are putting into your mind the idea that the machine knows if you lie.

      Now they start the real test. The most common formation is going to be the control question test. Now there are actually 3 types of questions in these format, the irrelevant, the control questions, and the relevant question.

      The only questions that matter are the ones you are supposed to answer no in response. The questions they ask like “Are you sitting down” are the irrelevant questions but they will tell you those are the control questions.

      What they are really doing is going to have questions paired with the relevant question, like “Did you rape that women?” with one they are certain you will lie about like “Have you ever cheated on a major college exam?”.

      In the interview process they are looking for areas you are sensitive about, like your college performance, work ethic, simple lawlessness like speeding, or relationship with your spouse. This isn’t an exhaustive list.

      So, they make a list of what they think you have an issue with and are certain you will lie about.

      To determine if you have pass the polygraph test they compare your response to these control questions like “Have you ever lied about how much your have worked?” with “Did you rape that woman?”.

      If your response is greater to the control question is greater than the relevant one “Did you rape that woman?” then you are considered to be telling the truth.

      Now, do you see the problem. What if that question pisses you off? What if you are vigorously asserting your innocence? You are going to pop on that question and be assumed to be lying.

      What if the control questions are something you haven’t done and you are honest, like you haven’t cheated on exams or lied on your timecard? Well, you are going to fail and assumed to be lying.

      I have a friend who applied to the FBI and he was in the military and worked removing explosive devices. He was a totally calm and cool guy even under the most crazy of times. Well, he failed the polygraph as the results were inconclusive meaning they couldn’t see a reaction on the control questions to show he was being truthful with the relevant questions. They didn’t want him with those results and if you fail an FBI polygraph you are barred for life from the FBI.

      The polygraph is total BS and under no circumstances should you take one. Especially if you are suspected of any crime. Your chances of it going bad for you are exceeding high, especially if you get worked up asserting your innocence.

      I’m certain that agencies like the FBI are using the polygraph screen for security clearances as ways to keep people with politics they don’t like out. With top level management being shown to be biased as hell I’m certain it is a big problem at the lower levels. I know lots of people that applied to places like the FBI, NSA, and such couldn’t pass the polygraph and their stories all have an interesting common point is that during the PSI (personnel security interview) they were asked about what political organizations or people they have donated money and when they were strongly on the right their polygraph interview went like shit.

      Seriously, anyone can be setup to fail a polygraph. There have been TV investigations showing how the polygraphers couldn’t spot the “thief” in test condition. Also, they have been reviewed in several science studies and shown to completely fail on a double blind setup.

      The polygraph should be completely banned and tossed into the junk heap of quack devices. The only thing out there that can get somewhat close to a real lie detector is a functional MRI but still there is a lot of uncertainty.

  5. What we see in Mz Gillibrand is one of the reasons I term them ‘demoncraps’ (because that’s all they’re worth)
    She’s a political hack and is totally subordinated to the party, the whole party and nothing but the party.

    When she was a US Representative, she was known for her pro-2A politics and IIRC had an NRA “A” rating.
    She gets elected to the Senate and the wolf in sheep’s clothing is revealed. This indicates her moral worth; nothing

    Every politician from the Dog Catcher on up who runs with a (D) as their party affiliation should be considered as nothing better than a lying scumbucket of slime.

  6. Remember: don’t talk to the police without a lawyer.

    Massad Ayoob adresses this succinctly. Point out evidence, witnesses, etc. If you can, take a MAG40 class.

    That being said, the tactics of the Left in a great many topics are sharing more and more similarities. Family law, business, 2A issues, dating, your job, etc, etc, etc.

    How did this happen?

    We let it.

    How do we fix this?

    We’re finding out. Maybe.

    Winter is coming. Vote appropriately. While you can.

  7. Investigations are to answer questions. The FBI did an investigation of the allegations made by Anita Hill. They can certainly do one here. For all we know, the investigation may totally exonerate Kavanaugh, right? This morning, a Maryland LEO for the jurisdiction where the alleged assault may have occurred advised that they would be willing to do an investigation with a little more info.

    Polygraphs are routinely used when determining a person’s suitability to hold a high level security clearance, so while they may not be used in a criminal trial, they are recognized as a way to determine truthfulness.

    Again, if I were Kavanaugh and I knew 110% that I was innocent, I would be demanding a polygraph. Imagine how much horsepower it would give to the argument that he wasn’t involved.

    And accko, I took a college course in polygraph testing and actually administered a polygraph test, and you couldn’t be more inaccurate in your comment. No, I’m not an expert by any means, but you have no clue.

    1. Frank – you’ve been told, by several people, in several different ways, why what you propose is a bad idea. You refuse to listen.

      We can’t save you from yourself. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in the circumstance where the good advice you’ve gotten – repeatedly – should come to bear. If so – best of luck. You’re gonna need it.

Login or register to comment.