oops, no, I mean your dear leader Keith Ellison's accuser, Karen Monahan. You know, the woman you liberals refuse to believe, even though her acccusations are well documented. I guess you guys can go back to not giving a damned again.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/...buser.html

I demand an FBI investigation into this!

My ex-wife was on the condo board for the place she had lived in before we got married (we kept the place and tried to rent it out, horrible mistake, she ended up on the board because the bylaws required 3 board members and they had to be current on their homeowner dues, and there were only 3 owners out of 225 who were current).

Anyway, a 12-year-old was abducted, taken off the property, and sexually abused at another location. The condo association and the board got sued. The individual condo owners were not sued in their capacity as property owners, which meant is was something of a bizarre lawsuit. Anyway, the condo had insurance and the insurance company provided counsel. I insisted that my then wife and I obtain separate counsel. She did not want to spend the money, but I insisted. Good thing we did. It came down to a trial set for a Thursday, with mediation beforehand set for Tuesday, and the insurance company appointed attorney finally agreed to meet with us for breakfast on Monday (first meeting after several months of trying to schedule). She informed us that she had taken exactly one deposition, of a psychologist who had interviewed the victim some 3 months after the incident, and that individual was a "compelling witness" (lawyer's words) who could testify that the boy had experienced a traumatic incident. She had not taken the boy's deposition, because his lawyers had objected that it would be "too traumatic an experience" for him (apparently, going to trial wasn't traumatic, but giving a deposition somehow was). Further, our personal attorney had determined that the boy had prior convictions for juvenile prostitution, and asked if there had been a motion to unseal those records, to which the response was, "No, we didn't want to upset the judge." But there was some good news. There were two different insurance companies involved, and (after spending a bunch of the coverage limit on time and effort to negotiate) they had agreed on how to split up coverage of any damages. Needless to say, I was pretty annoyed. As we walked out of the diner, I told my attorney, "I want you draft a letter and fax it to the insurers and to the attorney this afternoon." He replied, "And I know exactly what you want it to say. Give them three options--1, settle the case at mediation and cover the full amount of the settlement, 2, go to trial and agree to cover any judgement without regard to policy limits, or 3, we will appear in court Thursday morning to request a continuance for us to obtain different counsel because the counsel provided to us by the insurer was inadequate and incompetent." I replied, "Yep, that's pretty much it." His paralegal said, "They won't like two of those." He sent the letter. They settled at mediation.

Here the most compelling piece of substantive evidence appears to be a mental health practitioner's notes about an interview 30+ years after the incident. I don't see how that is sufficient to prove anything.