mhaze,

I don't care!

I just want to see Porter take the polygraph test.

If the Hon Christian Porter remains Attorney-General during the trial

The Attorney-General being "the minister responsible for legal affairs, national and public security...a general legal adviser to the Cabinet, and has carriage of legislation dealing with copyright, human rights and a range of other subjects."

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-General_of_Australia#Role_and_functions
________________________________

And continues to retain the three best defamation lawyers in the land. Namely:

- Rebekah Giles http://www.companygiles.com.au/about

- Sue Chrysanthou SC http://153phillip.com.au/barristers/sue-chrysanthou-sc/ and especially

- Bret Walker SC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Walker

(Bret appeared for Geoffrey Rush when he successfully sued the Daily Telegraph for defamation. Walker also acted for Cardinal George Pell, whose child sex abuse convictions were overturned in an appeal before the High Court.) see http://theconversation.com/christian-porter-sues-abc-and-reporter-louise-milligan-for-defamation-157140
_____________

Then?!

Mr Opinion, What possible benefit could there be in having Christian Porter undertake a polygraph test? Apart from wasting everyone's time, it would serve no purpose and prove nothing. You may as well have a physic run a oija board to determine guilt.
As far as Bill Clinton was concerned, it was all based on his definition of "sex" in that context. His definition was penis in vagina with ejaculation occurring within the vagina. He had refined this definition over several decades with countless partners.
With Mr Porter, unless there is a written diary from the young woman recorded at or about the time of the event, there are great doubts about the accuracy of the recollection as being presented now. As it is, we do not have any way of confirming that the letter as presented is an accurate account.
Does the term "recovered false memories" ring any bells?

According to this article below "The attorney-general's lawyers allege the story - which did not name him - was defamatory because it imputed he raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988 and that contributed to her taking her own life."

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/porter-s-ag-role-tweaked-amid-abc-lawsuit/ar-BB1eC3sc?ocid=msedgntp

I don't recall it being like that.

I thought the ABC said a woman had claimed that she had been raped by a man and that man was now a Cabinet minister. And I don't recall the ABC saying that the woman had committed suicide because she had been raped by that man.

We need to ask someone who is an expert on these matters. How about this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

Opinion,

Polygraphs have no legal standing as I told you elsewhere.

One of the tricks to fool them is to contract the muscles of the anus.

No shi t!!

Hi Issy,

Is that why you haven't been winning any "Porky" awards lately? You've been contracting the muscles of your anus while banging on your keyboard! I say let it all out, let it flow, despite the mess the truth is best