Thread by @JewhadiTM

As a human rights attorney, why did you not discuss due process-which is a constitutional right?

Amal Clooney criticizes Trump for controversial comments on Christine Blasey Ford’s Kavanaugh accusations: report

foxnews.com/politics/amal-…

He stated the facts. If stating facts is considered ridiculing, that says more about the allegations and the accuser, not POTUS

“A president shouldn’t ridicule a woman who ‘courageously’ comes forward to ‘allege’ abuse,” Clooney told the crowd in Philadelphia.

The Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment requires that a citizen cannot be accused of a serious crime without a grand jury investigation.

The Principle of Due Process

Due process means that laws must be applied fairly and equally to all people, especially to a citizen accused of a crime.

“... due process is the fair treatment that every individual deserves from law enforcement and the judiciary. Accusers should be heard without bias; defendants should be judged on the evidence and through unbiased procedures.”

In America, the legal meaning of "due process" derives from the common law tradition, the Bill of Rights, laws and court precedents. The protections include "innocent until proven guilty," the right of cross-examination, legal representation and transparent proceedings.

Because the protections apply to defendants, however, due process is often said to obstruct justice for accusers. Thus, the pendulum swings far in the direction of protecting an accuser. Campus hearings are an example.

They stress the need to believe an allegation, which is captured by the phrase "believe the woman" because women reputedly do not lie about sexual assault. Campus hearings invert due process protections.

The defendant is guilty until proven innocent; he is denied legal representation and the right of cross-examination; standard rules of evidence are abandoned.

But automatically believing an accuser devolves to abandoning the judicial process altogether.

If an accusation is automatically true, then there is no need for investigations or courts to uncover the facts. #MeToo-style public "prosecutions" are a large step in that direction; accusations are tried in the court of human opinion, where they are immediately believed.

The accused people are guilty before a trial or any other unbiased investigation.

"Believe the accuser" runs up against human nature. People are not only fallible, but they also capable of bad behavior, such as lying.

Due process acknowledges that accusers can be mistaken, confused, or lying. It attempts to separate evidence from error and malice in order to judge an accused on the former. This is especially important for cases in which a guilty judgment can ruin a person's life.

Third parties - judges, juries, the public - simply cannot know the truth without facts that are evaluated by reasonable standards, such as placing the burden of proof on the person making an accusation.

The dynamic is not an indictment of an accuser who may be honestly wrong about an identification or other key evidence. It happens with some frequency.

The Innocence Project has freed "more than 350 wrongfully convicted people based on DNA." Confusion is also a large factor, especially in cases involving drugs or alcohol.

Differing interpretations can lead to plausible "she said/he said" scenarios through which objective third parties need to sort.

Some allegations are also lies, of course. In a recent Connecticut case, Nikki Yovino was sentenced for falsely accusing two student football players of rape. One of the accused stated, "I lost my scholarship, my dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30,000."

Western jurisprudence, especially due process, is organized around the reality that people can be mistaken or lie. That's why a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof falling to the accuser.

The right to face an accuser means an accuser must STARE A DEFENDANT (accused ) IN THE EYE, WHICH REMOVES THE ANONYMITY THROUGH which lies flourish.

The necessity of due process is often contested on the grounds that false allegations are rare. What is the rate? No one knows for sure, but early FBI sources place the rate of false accusations at about 8%.

Even if it is far lower, however, every defendant deserves a fair trial. Statistics do not alter the fundamentals of justice.

thehill.com/opinion/civil-…

The FBI’s 8% figure does not include UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS WHERE AN INVESTIGATION WAS UNABLE TO PROVE A sexual assault occurred, so an accurate figure for the total remains unknown.