We now know that Ford is scheduled to testify before the committee, so the subject of whether she should be given a chance to testify came and went yesterday. Now, the issues are whether the hearing might be averted somehow — I can think of at least 3 things that could happen — how aggressively and extensively Ford should be questioned and what Kavanaugh should do in response and how how to exploit all of this in the midterm elections. I'm just floating all those topics for now.
What I want to talk about is: "She passed a polygraph test administered by a former F.B.I. agent..."
1. Does the status "former F.B.I. agent" convey professionalism and aloofness from partisanship? That reputation has taken a big hit these days. I don't mean to say anything about the particular FBI person who did the questioning and interpreted the results (identified in the NYT as Jerry Hanafin), but I can't read "former FBI" to mean not a political partisan.
2. Does one "pass" a "polygraph test"? From the Washington Examiner (a conservative newspaper):
“The polygraph is not a lie detector,” said [Thomas Mauriello, former senior polygraph examiner who worked at the Defense Department for 30 years, current a part-time professor in the University of Maryland’s criminology and criminal justice department]. “Let’s make that clear. There is no such thing as a lie detector. It’s simply an investigative tool that will record physiological reactions when you’re asked a question and give a response.”
He said if a person being tested doesn’t have a physical response to a question, that’s not necessarily a guarantee that he or she is being truthful or honest. Mauriello said there are even medications called beta blockers that a person can take to prohibit such bodily reactions....
Experts said that the way the results of a test are assessed is largely subject to who is doing the evaluation, and that the way an examiner formulates his or her questions can produce varying results. In other words, whether a person “passes” or “fails” a polygraph test depends greatly on who conducts it.
“In cases like this, as surreal as it may sound, people can ask for second opinion,” said James Gagliano, a former FBI supervisory agent who now teaches homeland security and criminal justice leadership at St. John’s University in New York.... Polygraph administrators, he said, aim to determine a subject's physical “baseline” by asking a series of innocuous questions like their name and favorite sports teams. He said then, an administrator may ask more "uncomfortable" questions and that the test could register a physical response, such as an increase in heart rate....
Posts
117 comments:
Junk science. An indicator of things if the stakes are high is the best they can offer. Part of the way it works is the intimidation factor- the risk of being caught in a lie. Having a sympathetic test administrator isn't going to discover anything conclusive. How about we get a few of our guys to administer it?
Theatre and farce. My bet is it will get much weirder and farcical...
It's more likely that the woman believes it and it's not true. The population is big enough so that crazy women are always available for any man.
Did she pay for the test? Doesn't that get you the results you want? What questions were asked? Why did the polygraph examiner leave the FBI? Don't they pay the most for this type of work? Does the Dollar Store pay more to vet their cashiers? Shouldn't David Lat be working for The Penny Saver?
So many questions. . .
200 women who went to the same school signed a petition of complaint. It's a girls' school so the craziness is concentrated there.
For someone who didn't want to be known, she certainly prepared herself for outing by taking the polygraph. I watched an interview by Laura Ingraham on Fox in which three women spoke in Kavanaugh's defense. One of them had been friends with Kavanaugh since elementary school. Two of them were former clerks of his and worked closely with him. None of them believed he had done this thing. One would think there would be others were this true. Isn't there generally a pattern of abuse among men accused of this conduct?
Lindsay Graham notes that CBF took this polygraph some time back. Katz set this up. This fact blows to bits CBF’s allegation that she was reluctant to come forward. This whole thing was planned by CBF and Katz. This is a political hit job.
Also note how vague the allegations are. Tough to defend if we don’t have a date or address. Also note how the only alleged witness is admitted drunk Mark Judge. He wrote a book on his alcoholism. Katz knew that.
As a backup card, Katz has another woman who was allegedly at the party. A second political liar.
This is all about abortion.
Now we constantly hear that CBF must be treated with kid gloves. No harsh cross. She must be protected. Cruz might lose his seat. We also hear complaints from the Dems how this is rushed.
But I expect a total bloodbath. CBF will be branded as a liar. Kavanaugh has an unimpeachable story. Something along the lines of Lincoln’s cross in the murder case involving the sunset tables. I bet he was out of town for most of the summer of 1982.
You could make a sport of taking courses taught by crazy professors, Anita Hill, this lady, ...
There would be a certificate a guy could hang on his office wall. The pussy challenge.
So what exactlyd id the polygraph examiner ask her? What year this happened, what day this happened, where it happened and who was there?
Or was a lie-detector test given to 'prove' a penumbra?
Because it might be useful to actually know what answers she gave the divining needle; it seems it would be easier to lie when you don't need to have an actual story to stick to.
But: science.
I am Laslo.
Republicans should demand an examination of the polygraph, and interview the former FBI agent, under oath.
I'm still with the truth, Kavanaugh.
The accuser has no more credibility than the Democrats
As a professor of psychology, it is likely Dr. Ford is a member of the American Psychology Association. The APA has published a study that recognizes how useless a polygraph test is. "There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception...although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph." If the APA study cautions skepticism for the accuracy of polygraphs, how much more skeptical should we be for those who employ it and vouch for its accuracy? And shouldn't Dr. Ford know this?
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
The evidence is that she's crazy. The lie detector doesn't matter whether it works or not.
It's not like you can't work something out with crazy women but who has the time.
Work something out means implant a different memory. Tact and patience.
The 200 women already picked up her memory. That's how easy it is.
You can buy a USB Polygraph from WalMart for $99.95. Kavanaugh needs to buy one, take the test, and then proclaim: "Nope, I didn't do it."
LINK TEXT
I experienced a polygraph in the 80's for DoD. IIRC, it was all yes or no questions. My co-worker had problems with the breathing detector because of her boobs (her words) that made the operator repeat it many times. I remember it restricted my breathing.
What about those of us who don't care whether it happened or not? We aren't nominating a 17 year old boy to the Supreme Court. Bring me a woman he tried to get to second base with last month, and I'll care.
She is the person with the suicide vest going to meet Hitler and end the war. Someone had to do it and that someone had to be a woman. But her suicide vest only blows up Hitler and not her. She survives to be the heroine of the resistance, a real heroine and not ne of these do nothing Hollywood bitches full of talk. Already her heroism is noted. Already she is being lifted onto the plinth.
Decades ago, my mother worked assisting my father, who managed a restaurant. My mother scheduled and hired (and fired) the waitresses, acted as hostess, and sometimes as cashier and bookkeeper. One night, money went missing from the cash till. Suspicion centered on one person, due to the circumstances. My mother said, "There's no way she did it." (This based on my mother's appraisal of the young woman's character.)
A polygraph was given to all possible persons involved, and everyone "passed," though the girl under suspicion apparently showed nervousness in her results, which could, to some, suggest guilt. My mother still insisted it could not have been her. Polygraphs were given a second time to everyone. Again, everyone passed, with the suspect showing the greatest reaction that might suggest guilt. My mother was adamant: the young woman had not taken the money.
Ultimately, my mother came to suspect another person, the sister of a friend of mine, as it happens, and a classmate of my younger brother. My mother had known her since she was in grade school. This young woman had passed the polygraphs smoothly both times, without an iota of any nervous response. My mother proceeded to ask the young woman questions, including about the motor scooter she had bought shortly after the theft of the cash. The young woman finally shrugged her shoulders and said, very nonchalantly, "Yes, I did it. I took the money." My mother said she as cool and casual as if she had said, "Yes, I went to the beach this weekend."
My mother should have been a lawyer; her younger brother is, graduating from Harvard Law School, (after a high school guidance counselor had told his father, my grandfather, that it would be a waste of money to send the young boy to college). He went on to be lawyer in the Navy. One of his cases had to do with a young sailor who had been caught in flagrante with Rock Hudson. This was how my mother learned, way back in the 1950s, that Rock Hudson was gay. (But, I digress.)
I don't recall if the guilty young woman ever served a jail sentence. I think it handled with a fine, a requirement she repay the stolen money, and perhaps some other administrative punishment. It was a small community where most people knew or were acquainted with most everyone else.
I keep hearing that it is going to be impossible to determine the truth from 36 years ago. Why? The truth is, Kananaugh is innocent.
What everyone actually means is there is no way Ford can prove her statement. Kananaugh is innocent
If Republicans were smart, they would start every answer to any question with. "Yes I understand, first I know at this time, the judge is innocent..."
I'm surprised all the time at the number of people who think any type of congressional hearing gets to the bottom of an issue. Or is even a good fact finding tool. The only thing any congressional hearing does, and really is their primary purpose, is to establish a political narrative so that various politicians can act. It frequently can establish multiple political narratives with politicians citing various different witnesses testimony as personally persuasive and thus voting a certain way.
The David Lat cites the Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill affair as an example of hearings settling a situation but did it? If it did, wouldn't almost all people have agreed that Anita Hill's allegations weren't credible or were credible? I suspect the hearings merely let people who already felt one way believe what they already believed citing the hearings as evidence.
I don't know Ms. Ford so I won't speculate on her motivations, but assuming no statute of limitations, would there be any prosecutor in the country that would prosecute this case? I will speculate about Feinstein and the democrats' motivations. Theey almost assuredly want to delay the hearings for as long as possible and make political hay out of them. Granting their wishes would only lead to more and more 11th hour, decades old accusations to arise. Once you pay the Danegeld all you get is more Danes.
What has she ever said that would elevate breathing or heart rate? She can't remember what, when, where, why, how, and really all the who's. Nobody can restate the events, because she can't. So what could possibly be the baseline to determine anxiety.
Anita Hill took a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent, too. And I didn't believe her story, either.
If I believed in the worth of polygraphs (I don't), I would still not consider them unless I'm first approached with the offer to take a polygraph. Then I might look at the results. Don't bring me the positive results without demonstrating the willingness to risk failure.
Based on the public record, she's psychotic, and polygraphs are irrelevant when questioning the insane.
Well then there's this:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/
What about those of us who don't care whether it happened or not? We aren't nominating a 17 year old boy to the Supreme Court. Bring me a woman he tried to get to second base with last month, and I'll care.
That is so utterly reasonable, and yet a very bad response for this situation. The response validates the accusation. Very bad thing to do. Also in the #metoo era, teenage courting is now rape. Today there are no degrees of actions. Abducting a woman, tying her up and raping her repeatedly is exactly the same as a fully clothed guy wedging his knee between the knees of a fully clothed girl he's been making out with for 10 minutes.
Don't validate this unprovable accusation.
Liberals are talking about how weird it is that a man accused of rape has retained a lawyer.
To me it's weird that a woman pays for her own polygraph before she accuses anybody.
This is all very planned, is it not?
This is so complicated...it's so hard to know...maybe if I see them both...
If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. This is a delaying tactic all the way. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski are walking right into it.
There is no secret, evil Kavanaugh.
Anita Hill's own witness, Judge Susan Hoerchner, refuted Hill's story without knowing it. She said Hill was SO distressed that even sympathy didn't help.
Sympathy always works, with one exception. When the complaint isn't true, sympathy doesn't help.
What are the odds the CBF's mother wouldn't have brought up this incident in private during the foreclosure hearing with Judge Kavanaugh? CBF wouldn't have told her mother with the family house on the line?
Mom Kavanaugh had just one minor motion in the foreclosure.
This only matters in a nuthouse.
Mark this comment.
Kavanaugh is going to put into evidence a reconstructed calendar of his Summer of ‘82. Every day will be full with entries like: attended Yale football camp, attended Georgetown bb camp, volunteered at Musclar Dystrophy camp, date with Maura, attended cousin’s wedding in Ohio, went on Catholic retreat, family vacation to SC. Stuff like that.
Katz never figured on that!
Which label doesn't belong? A&M, Def Jam, Interscope, Mercury, London, Polydor, Vertigo.
-A PolyGram test.
"She passed a polygraph test administered by a former F.B.I. agent...Peter Strzok."
"She passed a polygraph test administered by former F.B.I. #2...Andrew McCabe."
"She passed a polygraph test administered by former F.B.I. head...James Comey, during a tweet-break as he posed in front of Mt. Rushmore, to reflect on hard times."
Didn’t Roy Moore pass a polygraph?
A legend being created;
https://mobile.twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1042005164171743232
The only time a polygraph works is when the person taking it breaks down and confesses.
Last I heard she is not scheduled to testify. She is invited. Feinstein refused to cooperate with Grassley, and refuses to give him Ford's contact information.
Such BS. And so bad for our “unity”. I hope DiFi loses her seat over this.
I agree with Eleanor @7:15am.
There was a famous case in Omaha years back. A woman accused s judge, the police chief, publisher of the OWH of being at wild sex and drug parties. (I knew the judge.)
Woman claimed she had sex with the married Mormon police chief. She was asked on the stand if the chief had any distinguishing marks on his body. No was her answer.
The chief had been shot as a young cop and had major scars on his arm and torso.
She may still be in prison.
Monday will be like that. CBF and Katz are in way over their heads. Kavanaugh is a real lawyer and he has real lawyers working for him. Bloodbath.
Once more into the sturm und drang. This is so far beyond tiresome.
I'm a woman. I think this woman is a mental case and has been for most of her life. I don't believe her - but I think it's possible for her to believe her. Yes, there are damaged people just like her scattered all around the country. I know a few. I'd like to know if her therapist ever assigned a DSM-5 diagnosis to her, say like BPD, Histrionic, Bipolar II. I'm just not sure if she is mentally ill in the ways that would lead her to believe that this incident happened and it happened with Kavanaugh, or if she is the sacrificial soldier. Who better to deploy than someone in the field of mind and brain games. She would supposedly know how to play.
As for me? As a women, when this kind of crap is pulled - and the way this has evolved, it is a big, steaming pile - like so much of what I consider the bogus #metoo junk, I think it negatively affects those who truly are victims. More people are being driven into the "women lie about it" camp. You're creating an environment where more and more people won't believe anyone and just aren't going to care.
At last a well considered resonsonse to this #MeToo incident. Today's WSJ produces a brilliant editorial entitled "A Spectral Witness Materializes."
It seems that we have go back more than 36 years to further abuse the statute of limitations - back to 1693 and the Salem Witch Trials, complete with apparitions serving as witnesses to get four women hung.
When the apparition appeared as Christine Blasey Ford her accusations took a proper less-wispy form as described in the WSJ:
What to make of it now? The tale became a lot less spectral. Still, there had been no police report, and there were no witnesses. The second boy allegedly in the room said he had no memory of such an incident and called the accusation “absolutely nuts.” Judge Kavanaugh flatly denied it. Her therapist’s notes from 30 years later are not objective reporting, merely a transcription of what Ms. Ford herself said.
The thing happened—if it happened—an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time, when the actors in the drama were minors and (the boys, anyway) under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones. No clothes were removed, and no sexual penetration occurred. The sin, if there was one, was not one of those that Catholic theology calls peccata clamantia—sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.
The offense alleged is not nothing, by any means. It is ugly, and stupid more than evil, one might think, but trauma is subjective and hard to parse legally. Common sense is a little hard put to know what to make of the episode, if it happened. The dust of 36 years has settled over the memory. The passage of time sometimes causes people to forget; sometimes it causes them to invent or embellish. Invention takes on bright energies when its muse is politics, which is the Olympics of illusion.
Everyone experiences trauma, some more than others in a lifetime, but 36 years of privately regurgitating whatever really happened has turned a mole hill into a mountain inside Mrs. Ford's mind, As a clinical psychologist she should know better.
I don't believe the story, but even if I suspected it were true, I wouldn't think that bringing it up now in this way could be used as a justification for making a "No" decision.
For some reason I don't like Kavanaugh - it seems to be one of these unreasonable personal things - so I would be somewhat happy if he were not appointed.
But still - this sets a bad precedent. Way bad. It's impossible to refute such an accusation from so many years ago! And given the stakes, aren't we opening the door to such a claim against any MALE nominee? I don't think such tactics should be allowed to work. They are too universally fatal to the integrity of the process.
What next? We get a female nominee and a kid she babysat in high school pops up with the accusation that she was mean to him?
I hope that Judge (other guy in the room, according to her) sues her for slander and libel. If I were on the jury I would give him a significant award.
I also think that it is a very good lesson for women to learn. If someone DOES sexually assault or harass you, speak up then - or one day you may have to live with the consequences of not doing so later.
Ford and Kavanaugh can testify next Monday, and then the committee can vote later in the week.
That's good enough.
This is an allegation about some teenagers at a drinking party 35 years ago.
Kavanaugh has already proved himself capable of lying under oath so this should be interesting.
how aggressively and extensively Ford should be questioned
Waterboarding seems about right.
Who told you that, r/v?
Spartacus?
"Anita Hill took a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent, too. And I didn't believe her story, either."
Oh, I believe Hill's story.
I hope the Senators ask her for details about her scrubbing information about herself from the Internet.
He's referring to when the traitorous swimmer was coordinating just such a campaign against us nominees, a reprise of this 86 speech against bork.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-russ-feingold-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
Here is the link
Jerry Hanafin, "former FBI": What is your full name?
Christine Blasey Ford: Christine Blasey Ford.
Jerry Hanafin, "former FBI": Are you a skankwhore?
Christine Blasey Ford: Yes.
Jerry Hanafin, "former FBI": Congratulations.
Lyin' Russ Feingold and HuffPo are your sources?
You should do standup.
Kavanaugh has now been 'tagged'. The dog and pony show will take place. She will get hard questions and cry or at the very least, look under siege. The result will be that the Senator who does the hard questioning will forever also be 'tagged'- as anti-woman, a misogynist, and all of the other 'ists' will be tagged onto him as well (it'll be a him). Kavanaugh will be questioned and accused by Kamala Harris and Skippy Booker. Both of whom will sound as if they don't actually understand what's happening here, but are neck deep in setting up the dividing of America. Both want to be your President, but think that you are a Nazi and really don't like you or your family at all. Note: Harris will be particularly on stage. And she will show herself for what she is. And you should be very scared that our choice will be her or Trump.
Kavanaugh is being asked to prove that he did not do something that may not have happened. Or if it did, prove that it was just teenagers and their hormones playing out badly. He has to show and make people remember he has not done anything like that as an adult, that he has had a full, gracious, and productive life. That anyone in contact with him professionally or socially, loves the guy. No matter, he was once a teenager and he can't remember what he did with his hormones. But...how to you disprove something that you are being accused of with no proof? How do you respond to something you are being accused of as a teenager, 35 years ago?
Anyone out there ever touched a woman's breast as a teenager? I have to ask that. Because it's going to come back at you when you aspire to greater things as an adult. Welcome to the Dems America. Welcome to the day when what passes for academic thought goes mainstream on a once free people.
Hide your sons.
One last thing: last week I bought a table from an online retailer. They noted that I had a 30 day window to return, that I had to let them know within that 30 day window. So...in this world- if I have a table that wobbles or has a chip in it, I have to pay attention and report it within 30 days. Its that important. This woman is saying she was attacked. Not raped, but groped, as a teenager by another teenager. And as traumatic as it was, it wasn't traumatic enough to report it, or even talk about it with anyone. Somehow, she managed to get worked up about it 35 years later. If she had bought a table that wobbled she'd have had to respond quicker than that, by 35 years. And I suspect this person, had she bought a table from Resto that was not right, would have been on the phone within an hour of receiving it to make sure they knew she was pissed. This is such major Bullshit and has to be called as such. I don't care what they did as 15 and 16 year olds, aside from a real murder or a real rape or attack. Not a clumsy teenage hormone explosion.
I tend to consider Democrats people who hang out at the level of whale shit. Bottom feeders. I don't want to, but they keep showing me thats where they live. They've managed to crawl below even the bottom on this one. This is not going to go well for them as this plays out.
CBF wrote that she had something like 64 lovers in high school and was a teenage alcoholic.
Does she remember all 64 names? Or is it easier to just remember the guys that didn't sleep with her?
This is the kind of question that Hillary would ask if Kavanaugh hired her.
Ford told her marriage therapist that the incident happened when she was 17 or 18 years old.
Therefore, Kavanaugh was 19 or 20 years old.
She was in high school, and he was in college.
This questioning needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity. I'd set the tone with the first question -- "Ms. Ford, do you currently or have you ever done the butt stuff?"
Even if the allegations were true would this disqualify Kavanaugh? Society today tends lump everything that can possibly be called sexual misconduct, other than rape, as something just slightly less bad than rape. Clearly the allegations aren't a case of rape, they don't even sound like a case of attempted rape, but they aren't nothing either. So how bad is it? If it were true it would seem to be to be in the ball park of a 17 year old boy in high school, instigating a fight with a 15 year old and then punching him in the face and knocking him down. If someone came forward with an allegation like that would that be considered disqualifying?
"I tend to consider Democrats people who hang out at the level of whale shit. Bottom feeders. I don't want to, but they keep showing me thats where they live."
You're not very observant if you haven't noticed the Republicans, who also live there.
Here's what a proven polygraph expert has to say:
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html
narciso's link shows the setup for what it is.
"Anyone out there ever touched a woman's breast as a teenager? I have to ask that. Because it's going to come back at you when you aspire to greater things as an adult. Welcome to the Dems America. Welcome to the day when what passes for academic thought goes mainstream on a once free people.
Hide your sons."
This.
Cookie:
Your story is so detailed it sounds true but I still find it hard to believe your parents, the restaurant owners, gave multiple lie detector tests to employees over some missing money.
Blogger Fabi said...
This questioning needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity. I'd set the tone with the first question -- "Ms. Ford, do you currently or have you ever done the butt stuff?"
I think that is what democrats are hoping for. If the Republicans come out over the top and try to slander her, and tarnish her as a manipulative, sociopathic liar, set to undo democracy. The case is already extremely weak, without damning evidence showing she is knowingly lying, just treat her allegations as not credible allegations. Let people decide on her motivations on their own. To many she will come off as someone who may think she is remembering events correctly but is just misremembering them. That isn't an entirely unsympathetic figure.
Republicans should instead save their vitriol for Senator Feinstein, who's actions are contemptible and show she cares little for the truth, the accuser, the process, the nominee, or anything other than playing politics.
she is a a fraud.
Vault Dweller -- My comment was clearly facetious. The woman is an hysteric and unstable. She can't even provide the year in which this manufactured assault took place! She has zero credibility and it won't have any impact on his confirmation. This is another chance for Spartacus to cry for the cameras.
1.) Roy Moore took and passed a polygraph. You all still decided he was lying.
2.) When did she take the test? The story is she intended to stay anonymous but if that's true why the hell would she take a polygraph? It makes no sense and if she took the test more than a few days ago the story must be a lie.
3.) Ford could pass a polygraph if she truly believed what she was saying DESPITE what she was saying being incorrect or false. Many people passed polygraphs wherein they swore they had been victims in Satanic cult rituals, etc...they believed it was true but it wasn't. The polygraph is at best evidence of what Ford believes, not of what actually happened/is true.
Isn't anyone curious about who scrubbed Ford's social media (and who paid for it) and what was scrubbed?
At this point in time is there anyone who believes an FBI agent about serious matters?
Willie Brown's sperm bank and Spartacus Booker are going to take their banana republic cray to unimagined depths at this hearing. The question is whether any of their pals "on the other side of the aisle" will return fire and let the world know that the Marxist emperors are not only stark naked, but stark raving mad.
Passing a polygraph test indicates excellent control over breathing and the fight/flight reflex.
”Cookie:
“Your story is so detailed it sounds true but I still find it hard to believe your parents, the restaurant owners, gave multiple lie detector tests to employees over some missing money.”
They did not own the restaurant. My father was the manager. My mother assisted my father. I believe the owner wanted to apply the polygraph tests.
She can't even provide the year in which this manufactured assault took place!
That's why Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar will not be enough.
R/V is his usual nut case. Not as bad as trumpit but getting there.
brylun said...
Isn't anyone curious about who scrubbed Ford's social media (and who paid for it) and what was scrubbed?
I am and it would be interesting to find out who but Seth Rich shows how hard that is.
I would not be surprised if she does not even show up.
You're not very observant if you haven't noticed the Republicans, who also live there.
It’s clear that a great many establishment Republican politicians are slimy wastes of protoplasm. That said, I don’t recall a single instance of this kind of shots to the balls delivered by any of them. In sharp contrast, so many lefties, whether politicians or not, are simply disgusting human beings who wildly support this very behavior of their Soros-backed politicians.
The next civil war is coming. Y’all are asking for it.
- Krumhorn
"Jerry Hanafin served as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for over 24 years. He began his career in the Kansas City, Missouri Field Office in 1985 where he was assigned to investigate white collar crime and violent crime matters. He was transferred to Washington, D.C. in 1989 where he worked violent crimes and foreign counterintelligence. After graduating from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in 1995, he served as a polygraph examiner until his retirement in 2009. He conducted polygraph tests in a number of high profile criminal and espionage cases to include conducting exams in Nairobi, Kenya after the U. S. Embassy bombing in 1998 and several sensitive exams following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Jerry is a member of the Virginia Polygraph Association. He has received numerous awards from the U. S. Attorneys’ Offices in Washington, D.C. and Virginia for meritorious service. He was also honored by the Federal Bar Association, District of Columbia Chapter, for Outstanding Law Enforcement Service."
And, of course, if you are a true Progressive, the only truth is Progressive truth (the descendant of Lenin's revolutionary truth). If a statement advances the Progressive agenda it is "true" to you, and your physiological responses would show that. For them, "truth" has no other meaning.
I remember analogy questions on the SAT test I took over 30 years ago.
Back then, the SAT included analogy questions, which were eliminated in 2005.
Polygraphs : Law Enforcement :: Undercoating : Car Salesmen
My opinion about polygraphs is that passing the test means very little. On the other hand, failing the test is a big deal, though not truly conclusive.
Michael K's name calling is a bit wild today when he now accuses Senator Russ Feingold who documents a known case of Kavanaugh lying under oath indirectly as a nut job because I quoted him. But that is to. be expected from a blogger whose main arguments are often just name calling because somebody doesn't agree with his view.
R/V, you are the nutcase.
Feingold is a has been. I don't trust any Democrat who says, "It's not over until we win."
CBF wrote that she had something like 64 lovers in high school and was a teenage alcoholic.
Sure would like to see a link to someone who can verify that.
On the other hand, rumor is she was impregnated by her father and had several abortions in high school and has worked as an escort as an adult. Up to her to prove otherwise.
I've been polygraphed a few times.
If she's going to say she "passed", let's see the questions, and the chart.
In my experience, the questions are all yes/no, and asked twice; once off the machine, and then once on. The question changes slightly to help insure your answer is clearly a yes or no.
For example...
Off the machine: Did you ever steal anything from a place you worked?
I had to answer yes to this. I swiped a pair of sunglasses off the rack at a drugstore where I worked years before.
On the machine: Did you ever steal anything worth more than $100 from a place you worked?
Here, it was easy for me to say "No" and be certain about it.
Both times, I "passed".
Again, without seeing the questions, "passed" is a meaningless term.
Chuck grassley said this morning, (9/18), on the hugh hewitt show that, they have tried to contact the accuser for the last 36 hours and she or her lawyer has not responded.
He also stated that feinswines office isnt cooperating either.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaughs-accuser-isnt-answering-phone-calls-from-chuck-grassley-to-testify-about-her-accusations-n2520092
Interesting Twitter thread on what is going on.
I was right to be suspicious of McConnell.
.. McConnell is the one who early on thought Judge Thapar would be best choice, but went along w/ WH. Now, as process cracks open, he's asserting himself even as he remains a team player. Allies tell me his priority is the SCOTUS seat, not protecting Kavanaugh every news cycle.
If they abandon Kavanaugh without any serious evidence, the GOP election prospects will take a deep hit.
Remember, Kavanaugh was the GOPe choice. He was Romney's choice if he had been elected.
McConnell is without honor, but we knew that from the Alabama Senate thing,
DanTheMan is absolutely correct. We need to see her entire results, for each polygraph that she took. As it now stands, the only question she could pass was whether a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate. So the question was something like, "is this statement an accurate summary of your allegations?" Or, "does this statement accurately summarize your allegations?" What a ridiculous question. That this was the only question she could pass this throws off red flags like crazy.
From WaPo: "The [polygraph] results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate."
The fact she even took a polygraph was buried in the breaking WaPo story, which is also peculiar. If that polygraph were stellar, it would have been part of the headline (e.g., "Accuser of Kavanaugh Passes Polygraph").
As @DanTheMan points out, a (good) polygrapher goes through each factual allegation, question by question. The examiner doesn't ask a blanket question like, "is this an accurate summary of your allegations?" That's absolutely preposterous. If she'd passed a polygraph on each factual allegation, believe you me, her lawyer would have released the polygraph in full and WaPo would've published it.
Interestingly, she got her letter into Feinstein's hands through her local Congressional rep in late July. Only after contacting DiFi did she take a polygraph, in early August. Apparently the results were not impressive, or she was not credible, or both -- as Feinstein chose to keep Ford's allegations under wraps. Or, the results were not impressive and Ford chose to keep her allegations under wraps and someone leaked them. In any event, this stinks to high heaven.
Update: Ford herself broke the story with WaPo, which apparently then forced Feinstein to say she'd referred Ford's letter to the FBI. This makes it look even worse. She took a polygraph after contacting Feinstein, and apparently Feinstein had zero interest in her story after seeing the results.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-vote-delay.html (The original article Althouse linked)
I recall we used a galvanic response sensor in college to learn about the theory of lie detection. It's one of the physiological responses that go into how a polygraph works. The questions from the proctor were neutral yes/no things, and we were setting the baseline with known facts such as, "Is your hometown Detroit?" (yes.)
When we came to "Is your mother's name Margaret?", the correct answer was no, I gave the answer no, but Margaret, a randomly chosen wrong name, happened to be an ex-girlfriend who was really messing with my head at the time, with a bunch of stupid drama. My reading went off the chart.
We all did learn something from that exercise, but not necessarily the intended lesson. Or maybe that was the intended lesson.
So apparently, the FBI just runs around and gives lie detector tests willy nilly?
You know, just in case of X?
Or make that ex-FBI.
The whole thing is bullshit. We all know it.
Those who think otherwise should be ashamed.
In other bureau mishaps:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/whose-stuff-did-steele-shovel.php
The examiner doesn't ask a blanket question like, "is this an accurate summary of your allegations?"
Is this an accurate summary of your lies ?
Yes. Passed.
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for Ms. Ford and wonder if she is going to hold up under scrutiny. To begin with, she came from a family where she didn't even have the basic trust and love of a mother to whom she could confide about what was a relatively minor event. (BTW, just for knowing, why was she wearing a one piece bathing suit under her clothing to go to a party? Was she anticipating being molested? What was going through her mind when she went to that party?) On top of all that, she has held onto that episode and allowed it to damage her relationships with men her entire adult life, or so she says; despite all her studies and knowledge in psychology. I hope that she will have the opportunity to heal from this, because otherwise it may result in her complete breakdown. I hope that she will be honest and open about her mental condition and her doubts; but she's put herself in a difficult bind: the people who are supporting her are insisting that she have no doubts or retractions. The people who are attacking her will not be sympathetic or kind even if she recants.
That said, I have also had experiences with vindictive and vicious female neighbors who have made up completely bizarre stories and lies about feeling threatened or verbally attacked, etc., in order to gain favor with management in disputes. So I know what some people are capable of doing.
Is this worse than the Anita Hill episode or just the same? Clarence Thomas was her boss and there was a lot of interaction between them, with Kavanaugh this was one teenage party he may or may not have attended. What is there to discuss?
Christine Blasey Ford took and passed a lie detector test; will Brett Kavanaugh take a lie detector test?
Simple solution and everyone can go home.
Lie #1 is that she didn't want this to go public.
>>Christine Blasey Ford took and passed a lie detector test; will Brett Kavanaugh take a lie detector test?
Exactly. Accused people have to prove they are innocent. And you can do that conclusively with a polygraph.
That’s why we don’t need trials or juries anymore. Just hook accuser and accused up to the machine and put the loser in jail.
No need for detectives or evidence or witnesses or judges any of that old fashioned junk.
Sociopaths and delusionals pass polygraph tests, too.
This "Me Too" thing is insidiously clever. I wondered who might get caught in this net when the program kicked off. Weinstein and a couple of network trolls. Coulda easily been a virtue signalling internalized payroll reduction in many cases. I've got a couple Lib friends who were very into Franken. He was just roadkill on the way to a "me too" block on whomever Trump nominated. So who is not cooperating with the senate WRT Feinstein/Ford show.
Brylun, good question guess narciso answered it. R/V, you're writing great stuff, maybe not here, but somewhere else.
Why are so many of you acting as if it isn't possible for Judge Kavanaugh, who was just as capable of engaging in some stupid alcohol fueled sexual violation as a High School teenager as any other teenager today.
Where is all this hostility toward Dr. Ford originating from?
Either it happened or it didn't and since NONE OF YOU were there that night, what gives you the right to malign her public statements without hearing from both parties under oath.
You would have to be a moron to believe Dr. Ford isnt speaking truthfully when she stated that she did not want to come forward with this alleged assault. Have you read the disgusting assessments of her motives that you people are writing?
What person wants to be dragged through the mire of your uninformed opinions?
Even in the face of ALL the powerful men who have been exposed for lying about their sexual assaults and sexual harrassment of women, you people continue to amaze me with your desire to attack the victim.
The President stated (a fact none of you can deny) he could walk up to ANY woman and sexually assault her? Your wife. Your daughter. Your sister. Your mother.
The attitudes and vitriol most of you are engaging in is obscene. The President went on to say "you can GRAB them, (not touch, GRAB) they let you."
I am a staunch Republican, who has 3 gorgeous teenage daughters and I've also been a teenage boy. Ive seen what happens at parties when teenage boys are under the influence of alcohol. Ive seen the same conduct in college as well. Teenage girls have no idea what teenage boys are capable of doing to them when they are drunk especially if there is more than one drunk fool.
Apparently none of you do either. Most of you don't even care either.
If you voted into office a man who BRAGGED about what he feels he is entitled to do to ANY woman...it surely doesn't matter to you what Judge Kavanaugh might have done as a drunk kid.
I stand up for the truth every day and as a TRUE member of the GOP PARTY who refuses to support sexual perverts like Trump just because he is standing in the stink hole that masquerades himself as a member of the Republican party.
The fact that Trump, the King of the lie, nominated him is what makes me wonder.
>>I stand up for the truth every day and as a TRUE member of the GOP PARTY who refuses to support sexual perverts like Trump j
Oh so you were there when Trump comnitted acts of perversion?
Where is all this hostility toward Trump originating from?
Either it happened or it didn't and since NONE OF YOU were there that night, what gives you the right to malign his public statements without hearing from both parties under oath.
Presumption of innocence, not innocence. The accuser bears the burden of proof. A lack of independent witnesses, including corroborating physical evidence.
Assumes an allegation of facts not in evidence. There is more than one missing link.
A statement of observation exposing the "casting couch" climate and friendship with "benefits" environment, not an admission of personal conduct.
The warlock hunt continues. It would be safer to catch babies, which are at least known to exist.
If you voted into office a man who BRAGGED about what he feels he is entitled to do to ANY woman...it surely doesn't matter to you what Judge Kavanaugh might have done as a drunk kid.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Trump was saying that certain women will allow Trump to fondle their vagina, not that he feels like he is entitles to fondle them. He was commenting on the loose morals of the women, not expressing an entitlement.
Where is all this hostility toward Dr. Ford originating from?
Perhaps because she is bringing up a 35 year old accusation for the first time despite previous FBI background checks and at least one prior Senate confirmation hearing. Perhaps because this is a carbon copy of the Thomas lynching.
how aggressively and extensively Ford should be questioned
Waterboarding seems about right.
Planning with a scalpel in one hand and a glass of Chianti in the other is known to force confessions with a nearly 100% effective rate of exposing a baby - one or two have been known to escape selection. Perhaps sodomy then abortion in a street trial for social justice sake.
This is ALL bullshit---this is about something he may or may have not done as an inebriated HS student, 35 years ago, more or less (the accuser claims to have been terribly traumatized but cannot even place the year and it's not like she can't remember if she was 40 or 41). Standing alone and with no more recent behavior even alleged, of what possible relevance is it to anything in 2018?
Has everybody lost their mind? (That is a rhetorical question, it is clear that they have.)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Uh huh. And, "sho nuff".
Guess who will be guest at next SOTU
If you sincerely believe something that isn't true, you can pass a polygraph.
A good "This American Life" episode about a lie detector test administrator who realized the tests don't work and started counseling on how to pass (and the fallout and legal issues raised by his consulting) can be found here: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/618/mr-lie-detector
Did someone mention a "Thomas lynching?"
Yes, I can acknowledge our disgusting history of "lynching" innocent black men in this country but Clarence,the porn addict, Thomas wasn't one of them.
What we learned AFTER they spent days trying to torch Anita Hill, was that CT had a history of doing this to other women.
If Kavanaugh has the personal integrity he says he does...wouldn't he want to prove it by any required request? Take a polygraph test administered by the FBI so as to remove any doubt we may have.
The appointment of Clarence Thomas to the court is exactly why Kavanaugh and EVERY candidate for appointment to the United States Supreme Court should be willing to address, beyond a mere background check,
any attack on their personal integrity.
We should demand and expect a higher standard and so should he.
FYI- Dan the man and Gahrie
You are not required to be present when a crime is committed to make a determination of guilty when the accused makes a recorded statement about GRABBING a woman's genitals and later state that it was "locker room" talk." He is convicted by the evidence of his deplorable conduct. Ever heard the name Stormy Daniels?
Gahrie- No need to attempt to insult my intelligence by marginalizing my comprehension ability.
You wrote:
"You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Trump was saying that certain women will allow Trump to fondle their vagina, not that he feels like he is entitles to fondle them. He was commenting on the loose morals of the women, not expressing"
The fact that your "reading comprehensive abilities" have led you to conclude that Trump, the serial cheater -including porn stars, was attempting to explain to a entertainment report that some woman have loose morals? So you want us to believe he had moral integrity on his mind when he made that statement? That is insane. HE didn't even make that ridiculous claim himself. Even his beloved Ivanka was ashamed and embarrassed of him.
You might want to examine your own moral compass. Your conclusion lacks the evidence of even basic comprehension.
Let's see...Demon-crats defends liars, like Hillary, Obama, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Brennan, the Iranian dictators, and thousands more. So, when you add Ms. Ford to the list, it points to her likely being a liar. Plus, she is a Demon-crat. My guess is that whoever was at the party were ALL drunk, and that she willingly participated in pending sexual activity, but grew scared (she was very drunk, thus illogical), and ran out. Those that stayed behind had NO idea why she left, because she was living inside her own head. By the time she got home and slept it off, she created her own narrative, unfairly creating negative intentions in others and condemnations. Even in a statement, she said that Kavanaugh looked at her with distaste later on. No judge accepts a person going into another person's mind and certifying the other person's emotions based on a look. Maybe he had just eaten a grapefruit or was farting or smelled something rotten, like perfume, when they passed one another. I have had distasteful looks because of bad perfumes. And, why did she not dread being killed then also? Get over it. It was over 30 years ago and NO ONE was injured and no property damage ensued. If you do as I do, being a victim of rape, you give it to the Lord to punish that person, now or after death. I did that years ago and no longer harbor hate.
The polygraph test should have been taken with experts from both sides -- not just a former FBI employee. Also, a drug test should have been administered as it is common knowledge that certain drugs can reduce the effectiveness of the test by putting the person into a state of complete relaxation.
Post a Comment