Plan B Forum

BoSoxGal wrote:If the immunity agreement was well crafted, the witness whose testimony changed should be facing felony perjury/obstruction of justice charges.

You would think that this would be boilerplate in the wording of an immunity agreement.

The provision of false or misleading information should be outside the grant of immunity regardless. I.e., in exchange for immunity you agree to provide truthful information which the prosecutor can use in its case. Otherwise the grant of immunity is null and void. So if the agreement was properly drafted, they should still be able to prosecute the medic for the murder.

At least that’s how I would have done it....

I didn’t read the prior post carefully enough but have now seen this story online and so realize he didn’t just change his testimony, but confessed to the killing himself. Yeah, that should void his immunity. If it doesn’t, they’re doing something really wrong in the JAG office or there is something very weird in the code of military justice - which is admittedly very different in substantial ways from the civilian justice system. Obviously immunity wouldn’t work if it allowed such hijinks so generally speaking this kind of thing only happens on badly written TV and movies.

It will be interesting to see what develops in this case.

This seems to be the appropriate place to put this item. I am partially quoting and summarizing a CNN piece below.

A Republican candidate for Governor of Mississippi (Robert Foster) has denied access to him by a female reporter unless she brings along a male colleague to act as chaperone, insisting Wednesday that he did so because he "just wanted to keep things professional." Like Mike Pence he refuses to be alone with a woman not his wife on the grounds that he might succumb to temptation and put his marriage at risk. Apparently he follows the 'Billy Graham Rule' which I didn't realize was a thing until I looked it up and found that it indeed has its own Wikipedia entry.

Foster also defended his decision on Twitter Wednesday, citing his Christian faith as the reason he denied access to Campbell.

"As I anticipated, the liberal left lost their minds over the fact I choose not to be alone with another woman," he said. "They can't believe, that even in 2019, someone still values their relationship with their wife and upholds their Christian Faith."

The original piece CNN was reporting from is in MIssissippi Today. It's worth going to that to read the comments. Wow! is all I can say.

I don't know if it's different in a public/professional context for important people but it's a rule my wife and I adhere to. Neither of us will be alone with a member of the opposite sex (because we are so cute and attractive that they'll have a hard time not to jump our bones).

Similarly, I won't be alone with a girl and Margaretta won't be alone with a boy (or group of same) from Bolokanang - but that's because we worry about false accusations of child abuse. I'm not sure why being alone with a mixed group makes accusations less likely - or indeed why we think that e.g. two boys won't make a false accusation against me but two girls might (and vice versa in Margaretta's case).

The Graham/Clinton thing was sensible - a very much public thing like two well-known folks sharing a table should be unobjectionable.

I should think Mr. Foster is entitled to want a chaperone but he should supply the same - it's his problem, not the lady's. His wife could have come along or he could have a guy or gal from the office hang with him and the journo. He was wrong not to take the initiative and give the semblance of unequal treatment.

So you would never meet a female friend for coffee, without someone else present?

I recall Meade mentioning this a while back...

He and I are on completely different planets on this one...

I have both male and female friends, so does Kelly, (and of course we also have a number of friends in common, of both sexes) and neither of us even gives a second thought to the idea of meeting up with a friend of the opposite sex for coffee, lunch, etc. one-on-one. The idea that there might be something "wrong" about this, has never even been on our radar screens as something to even think about...

(But then I'm probably not as hot as Meade, so I probably have less to worry about in the "bones jumping" category... )

There is alot of this kind of stuff going around. I think it is more driven by litigation than theology. The Boy Scouts have had such a rule, on the books at least if not in 98% practice, for decades--always two adults in the room with a scout.

With technology today it should be a simple matter to always record, both video and audio, everything. If you don't have such technology of your own running, always assume somebody else does.

snailgate.

What makes this story even more hilarious is that the reporter in question is a nice married lesbian lady who is presumably totally uninterested in Foster's manparts, unless of course it is true that he is so powerfully virile as to make a thoroughly gaymosexual gal suddenly and uncontrollably crave dick.

The crux -- primal, sexual urges in a social setting cannot be contained by a righteous individual unless supervised by a more moral observer.

Total trust as long as a "line of sight" is maintained. So much for reasoning, self-restraint, decency, and civility.

Two of Ten Commandments:
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

If you consider yourself a good Christian why are these so hard to keep?

Sad.

I covet my neighbour's ass because it's so much nicer than mine. But that's beside the point.

I understand the desire not to be alone with someone especially if you are, like Meade, a man of excessive charm, gaiety (not that there's anything wrong with that) and pulchritude. But, as Meade says, hire your own chaperone rather than expect the reporter to do so.

The most chilling bit of the story was Foster's statement about the 'left,' whoever they are: "They can't believe, that even in 2019, someone still values their relationship with their wife and upholds their Christian Faith."

So anyone who thinks otherwise (viz, the President of the US, clearly) does not value his relationship with his wife and does not uphold the Christian faith? I think we should be told, loudly and clearly. Over to you, Mr Foster. Spill those beans for us.

Don’t answer my question Meade, it really was rhetorical. That you buy into this horseshit tells me everything I need to know about you.

This is so ridiculously sexist and misogynistic. It presumes that every women is either: (1) so damn sexy no man could restrain himself in her presence; or (2) a lying not to be trusted whore who will either throw herself at any man in her presence, or lie about it. All the responsibility is placed on the women. Where oh where do these great so-called Christians take responsibility for their own actions.

That this attitude and “code” applies equally in a professional setting is even more offensive.

How the fuck can any of you condone this? Or laugh at it. Oh, right, you’re men.

Well, I for one have absolutely no code of honor. I'd eat dinner with anyone's wife or girl lady friend. It's a brave new world out there...

Joe Guy wrote:Well, I for one have absolutely no code of honor. I'd eat dinner with anyone's wife or girl lady friend. It's a brave new world out there...

And then you'd pretend you forgot your wallet and stick them with the check...

Guinevere wrote:This is so ridiculously sexist and misogynistic. It presumes that every women is either: (1) so damn sexy no man could restrain himself in her presence; or (2) a lying not to be trusted whore who will either throw herself at any man in her presence, or lie about it. All the responsibility is placed on the women. Where oh where do these great so-called Christians take responsibility for their own actions?

What I take away from these sorts of statements from people like Foster (or Pence) is that they *ARE* taking responsibility for their own actions: they are admitting, upfront, that their self-control—and their commitment to their own professed moral code—is so weak that without constant supervision they would likely go berserk and attempt to rape any woman with whom they found themselves alone. A frightening admission of serious derangement. They should be applauded for warning women of this danger in advance.




ETA:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I should think Mr. Foster is entitled to want a chaperone but he should supply the same - it's his problem, not the lady's.

Wellll...yeah. Though I guess maybe he could just wear a straitjacket and a Hannibal Lecter mask whenever he's in this sort of situation?

Joe Guy wrote:Well, I for one have absolutely no code of honor. I'd eat dinner with anyone's wife or girl lady friend. It's a brave new world out there...

Lord Jim wrote:And then you'd pretend you forgot your wallet and stick them with the check...

Hey now! I've only done that a couple times and they deserved it....

Welcome to America - it’s 2019, but we’re trying to get back to 1819 as fast as we can!

(Hey, at least we’d have another chance to avoid destroying the climate/environment- there IS that!)

Not so horribly long ago young ladies of virtue were not alone in the company of men in order to protect their reputations. That is precisely what the fellow in question seeks to do-prevent someone from saying something happened when it did not. And in spite of the general mocking displayed here it is a damned good idea.

Because women are lying and untrustworthy? Or unable to protect themselves and their precious “virtue”? Bullshit. It’s an idea that takes women back to a time when they were property, not allowed to be doctors or lawyers, own anything, and certainly couldn’t vote. That may be ok with you, but it sure as hell isn't ok with me.

Don’t forget that it is likely, under the religious code these men live by, that women are mean to submit to god and their husbands, cannot preach or lead the church, and are expected to stay home and be silent and obedient. Anyone who doesn’t conform with their mode of thinking is condemned and reviled as a non-Christian.

Of course, that isn’t “religion” it’s organized and institutionalized discrimination and misogyny. No thanks.

Is every Christian male a misogynist?