This is a rather novel theory of assessing guilt or innocence.
In the 1990's sci-fi tv show, Babylon 5, there was an ancient race known as "the shadows," for lack of anything better to call them. They were difficult to detect in the visible light spectrum, and their actual name was impossible for humans and other 23rd century space-faring races to pronounce anyway, so... fine. The shadows. They had a lackey running around the titular space station, acting as their pointman, named Mr. Morden. Subtle, right? He had this... thing. He'd ask a question. The "shadow" question. "What do you want?" If you ask the question, the first time, you don't get the true answer. But, if you ask repeatedly, eventually, you get to the truth because people get worn down and give you the truth.
On the other side of the ideological conflict at the heart of Babylon 5 was the other ancient alien race, the Vorlons. They had another question that they asked, repeatedly (via "Sebastian," who was really Jack the Ripper). Who are you? Ask repeatedly. By asking a question repeatedly, you get to the truth.
It's a writer's conceit.
It's not quite an interrogation technique.
Do you actually know how interrogation works? It isn't by torture, or the Vorlon/shadow technique of just asking the same question, over and over again. If you have a suspect, you ask the suspect to go through the sequence of events, over and over again. You look for inconsistencies, and you pick them apart. You introduce errors intentionally, and see if the suspect picks up on them or otherwise acts like someone bullshitting. You see how they respond to the introduction of small facts, one at a time.
You know what you don't do? You don't just say, "did you do it," over and over and over again under the theory that a guilty person will eventually just admit it.
Think of the stupidity behind someone actually, seriously thinking that a denial proves innocence. I mean... seriously think about that. Real interrogations are based on the relationship between presentation of facts and statements made, not the vehemence of a subject's denial.
This.... is called "comedy."
What, then, constitutes "due process?" The second component of Trump's latest statement is a demand for due process. We don't sentence people for criminal punishment without due process.
Except when we do. Hey, Donnie! What's goin' on over at Guantanamo?
With respect to employment, the question becomes how employers, like the White House, should have handled the Rob Porter case, and... well, I'll let the lawyers comment on that because I'm more interested in the Trump methodology here.
Really, quite an astonishing methodology Trump has here, right? Well, almost astonishing...
