quote:

Originally posted by 226Reasons:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Some of you guys need to cut back a bit on the whole Chicken Little routines.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The sky doesn't fall.

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

The sky doesn't fall.

Just relax. The sky isn't falling. It will all work out in the end.

Do you happen to follow Q. This has already been addressed. BK is being confirmed, everything is in hand. Red October.
This is nothing more than a stall tactic. Trump wouldn't agree to it if he didn't know he had the upper hand. We are winning. Enjoy the show.

Bingo

quote:

Originally posted by P229 357SIG Man:
A week is a short amount of time to launch and complete an investigation...any idea as to how many agents will be involved in order to accomplish this task?

How many agents? Doesn't matter.

Remember, it does not matter how many women you put on the job. It still takes nine months to make the first baby.

quote:

Julie Swetnick

Is this the one who was so distressed by the "rape train" party that she went to nine more of them?

The Montgomery county police chief is saying they are willing to do an sexual assault investigation if the victim comes forward and files a complaint. This is good. It puts pressure directly on Ford. If she is the timid fragile snow flake she appears she isn't going to be able to deal with any direct pressure.

This thing is growing and Ford's attorney's are not going to be able to shelter her totally or forever. I'm sure when she turned her back and left that interview room she thought she had finished her part in this and could surf off into the sunset.

If she is a real snow flake her handlers are going to have a hard time getting her to continue this charade. especially if it will result in her being questioned by real investigators asking real hard questions and not the snow flake type questioning in a marshmallow enviorment.

First FBI agent should go straight to the polygraph examiner of Ford. I will almost guaranty you that it was done outside any reasonable standards.

I have had them done and hired them for clients, it is an art, not a science. Plus, when you hire them they know exactly what result you want and work toward that. On trick is to do it multiple times with the same questions to get the person comfortable and to achieve the results you are paying for. Discredit the polygraph, this goes away.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
First FBI agent should go straight to the polygraph examiner of Ford. I will almost guaranty you that it was done outside any reasonable standards.

I have had them done and hired them for clients, it is an art, not a science. Plus, when you hire them they know exactly what result you want and work toward that. On trick is to do it multiple times with the same questions to get the person comfortable and to achieve the results you are paying for. Discredit the polygraph, this goes away.

I heard that he didn't ask her prep questions to gauge her truthfulness.

quote:

Originally posted by jdmb03:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
First FBI agent should go straight to the polygraph examiner of Ford. I will almost guaranty you that it was done outside any reasonable standards.

I have had them done and hired them for clients, it is an art, not a science. Plus, when you hire them they know exactly what result you want and work toward that. On trick is to do it multiple times with the same questions to get the person comfortable and to achieve the results you are paying for. Discredit the polygraph, this goes away.

I heard that he didn't ask her prep questions to gauge her truthfulness.

When discussing the polygraph test, she said there were so many questions, yet the test only showed two. There must have either been prep questions or the test was performed multiple times.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
There is so much churn in this thread that just replying to a post means it will show up pages later.

Which is why I've asked members to cool it.

quote:

Originally posted by StarTraveler:

quote:

Originally posted by jdmb03:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
First FBI agent should go straight to the polygraph examiner of Ford. I will almost guaranty you that it was done outside any reasonable standards.

I have had them done and hired them for clients, it is an art, not a science. Plus, when you hire them they know exactly what result you want and work toward that. On trick is to do it multiple times with the same questions to get the person comfortable and to achieve the results you are paying for. Discredit the polygraph, this goes away.

I heard that he didn't ask her prep questions to gauge her truthfulness.

When discussing the polygraph test, she said there were so many questions, yet the test only showed two. There must have either been prep questions or the test was performed multiple times.

He interviewed her before the test. Maybe that's where the 'many questions' came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf_IWElXjk

She commited perjury. She claimed to be a psychologist under oath, but she is not a licensed psychologist. She has a psychology degree, but never took the tests to become licensed. Its like someone who studies to become a lawyer but never takes the bar exam claiming to be a lawyer. The college she works for had her listed as a research psychologist, they have now changed her title to affiliate.

quote:

She commited perjury.

Which is perhaps why having the FBI speak with her may not be a bad idea either.

The leftists strongly believe in criminal charges against those who make false statements to the FBI, especially when it comes to some sort of collusion or effort to impact elections.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

She commited perjury.

Which is perhaps why having the FBI speak with her may not be a bad idea either.

The leftists strongly believe in criminal charges against those who make false statements to the FBI, especially when it comes to some sort of collusion or effort to impact elections.

I have said this since day one. Her story has so many inconsistencies and while she may well be sincere in her belief that has zero collaboration or evidence that Kavanaugh was involved ... she is not that bright and a walking perjury trap.

As suspected: The polygraph examination appears to have been entirely bogus:

quote:

WATCH: Ex-FBI Agent Reveals Details of Polygraph Test He Gave Christine Blasey Ford
Why were only two questions asked?

Sep 27, 2018 As seen on Fox News @ Night
by Fox News Insider

The retired FBI agent who administered Christine Blasey Ford's polygraph test joined Shannon Bream on "Fox News @ Night" to discuss the process and the results.

Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has emphatically denied the allegation, but Ford's sexual misconduct claim and several others have placed his confirmation in doubt.

In early August, Jeremiah Hanafin interviewed Ford about her allegations in order to formulate the relevant lie-detector questions, and he allowed her to state her recollections with minimal follow-up questions.

"When you do your interview before the polygraph, especially on a victim, you don't ask a lot of follow-up questions. It's kind of a heinous thing that's happened that they are alleging," Hanafin said. "So you want to get the general facts. So to continue to ask questions and pry, you don't want someone to get too emotional, especially a victim."

When he administered the polygraph exam, it consisted of just two questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"

Hanafin then ran the results of Ford's two "no" responses through three separate scoring algorithms, including one developed by Johns Hopkins University. All three algorithms concluded that Ford's responses did not indicate apparent deception, with one putting the probability that she was lying at .002 and another putting it at less than .02.

Bream asked if it is standard for a polygraph in a situation like this to consist of so few questions, and Hanafin confirmed that it was.

"You don't normally give polygraph tests to victims. You represent victims. You believe them unless you have some corroborating evidence that there's something about this person's allegations ... that you don't believe," Hanafin said, adding that he administered a "specific issue polygraph test."

"The one issue here is her statement. And you have to address that one issue only asking two questions," he said. "You look at the overall [statement] and you ask two questions, and that is the most validated polygraph test.

Full article: WATCH: Ex-FBI Agent Reveals Details of Polygraph Test He Gave Christine Blasey Ford

Here's the Twitter thread that brought this to my attention: https://twitter.com/jabeale/st.../1045896169107456000

This guy appears to know what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
As suspected: The polygraph examination was entirely bogus:

When he administered the polygraph exam, it consisted of just two questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"

Full article: WATCH: Ex-FBI Agent Reveals Details of Polygraph Test He Gave Christine Blasey Ford

Here's my question: why the ambiguity? Which statement? For all we know she could have given her statement on her love of alcohol before the lie detector test. That's a very simple way to subvert the lie detector. Why not ask is any part of your statement about Brett Kavanaugh false? Did you make up any part of your statement about Brett Kavanaugh?

I wouldn't put something like this past them.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
I might have missed it, but did anyone ask Dr. Ford why she didn't call the police if this horrible thing happened to her?

The claim was that the 15 yo girl did not want her parents to know she had been drinking beer in a house with boys.

I just read an interesting supposed quote from Ms. Ford on Facebook (which of course means that it is true) that said she "cried during the polygraph." The post went on to say that this would lead to a false positive.

My dealings with polygraphs during my LEO career was limited to observing not administrating them. So for those in the know, is this possible?

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
I just read an interesting supposed quote from Ms. Ford on Facebook (which of course means that it is true) that said she "cried during the polygraph." The post went on to say that this would lead to a false positive.

My dealings with polygraphs during my LEO career was limited to observing not administrating them. So for those in the know, is this possible?

Shame that polygraph is junk science.

[/QUOTE]

Shame that polygraph is junk science.[/QUOTE]


They are junk science and as most people know not admissible in court. I was surprised though by how many people would confess either just before or right after taking one.

during the turmoil before Flake's dramatic announcement, he even talked with Rod Rosenstein

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j...is-coons-2018-09-28/

"Flake's decision came after he spoke to senators of both parties and withstood pressure from some Republicans not to take such a step. As he considered his course of action, Flake also had a conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is in charge of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation."

Lots of good will come this November from hanging in there.

American Spectator
Dov Fischer

It is beyond frustrating that yet another week of delay in the Kavanaugh Saga now is on the horizon, as the Senate Judiciary Committee has authorized a quick, efficient supplemental FBI investigation limited in time and scope. President Trump, whom The Resistance portrays regularly as an irrational authoritarian who is bull-headed and listens to no one, swiftly agreed to the compromise proposal :“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement. “As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

Although few things may seem more frustrating to Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters than to wait yet another week for an anti-climactic seventh FBI investigation into his background, the extension of time does offer several potential benefits for both the judge as he prepares to ascend the nation’s highest bench and for the Republicans as they go into the November elections.

First, hidden behind the Democrats’ cynical charade of seeking “only the truth” is a huge tug of war between the parties over the suburban white female voter. The brilliance of having Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, conduct the questioning of Christine Blasey Ford becomes more apparent in that light. The Democrats wanted the nation’s women to emerge appalled by the harsh mistreatment they hoped would unfold brutally as Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee presumably would tear into her story’s inconsistencies and uncertainties. Yes, the Charles Grassleys and Orrin Hatches would win litigation points, but they would lose undecided voters, particularly reasonable open-minded women. The GOP masterfully avoided that trap as Ms. Mitchell uncovered enough inconsistencies, curiosities, and uncertainties in Dr. Ford’s testimony to justify non-Resisters moving ahead with the Kavanaugh selection and voting Republican in November.

As Democrats on the committee saw their early morning gains dissipate after Judge Kavanaugh powerfully and persuasively defended himself, his name, and his family, they gathered around one last tactic: the demand for an FBI investigation to “clear Kavanaugh’s name.” Oh, how they joined in concern to defend the good name of the man whom they had besmirched for months! “Wouldn’t you want that?” they asked Judge Kavanaugh over and over again. “Why would you not want your name cleared by a non-partisan FBI investigation?” Among the five nominees for best actor in the coveted “Don’t You Want Your Name to Be Cleared by the FBI for a Seventh Time? Category,” Dick Durbin was most compelling, a wonderfully acted performance.

Certainly, half the country sees through the charade, the nonsense — the outright mendacity. Democrats and their Resistance do not care a whit about the claims of Karen Monahan, who persuasively, continually, emphatically asks to be heard as she alleges that Keith Ellison beat her up, dragged her around the floor by her hair, left her in physical shambles. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand associated tightly and prominently for years with Bill Clinton, well into the years of Paula Corbin Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky. That never bothered her. What about Paula’s truth? Kathleen’s truth? Juanita’s rape? Monica’s victim-shaming?

So half the country sees through it all.

But half the country apparently does not, and their votes count, too. The Republicans lose little but can gain a great deal by demonstrating to middle-road and fair-minded women voters that the gang-attack anti-Kavanaugh depictions on CNN, MSNBC, and in other media are false. That Republicans are fair and reasonable. And that the GOP can go along with one more essentially pointless FBI investigation and background check. The Democrats cannot admit that what they really want is not an “FBI investigation” but really a song-without-an-end Robert Mueller investigation for the next two years — or three years, or four years — of a party whose location is not identified, whose date is unknown, whose reason is mysterious. A party that Christine Ford cannot explain. She cannot explain how she got there, how she got home from there. That is what the Democrats really want — even if it leads to nothing more than plea bargains in four years with Paul Manafort for his breaking and entering into the party to retrieve his ostrich-leather jacket. But the Democrats will not get that. Rather, they will get a week and their FBI investigation.

The ABA will be satisfied. Jeff Flake will be satisfied. Alan Dershowitz will be satisfied. Brett Kavanaugh will have had his seventh FBI clearance. Susan Collins will be covered. Joe Manchin will be covered. And that will be that — because, with all procedural requirements now concluded, if there is one thing on which you can bet the family farm it is that the Republicans are going to get that vote on that Senate floor finally cast before November 6. So thank you, Harry Reid, for ending the filibuster on federal judicial nominees.

Along the way, the Republicans have tip-toed past the pitfalls that loomed before the Ford inquiry. They elicited some key inconsistencies in her accounts without leaving her sobbing and weeping or them seeming to be ogres. Not a single sob sound-bite or screenshot emerged from hours of five-minute intervals. At the same time, they afforded Judge Kavanaugh a proper forum before a riveted nation to clear his name for those open to hearing his narrative without pre-judging the judge. Many in the Republican base now are energized as they were not before. He is a good man. He did nothing of the sort alleged. His children came out of it praying for the woman who has made the unproven, undocumented charges that are so bare of substantiation that even Sen. Jeff Flake moved over to approve sending the Kavanaugh nomination to the Senate floor. That means that Brett Kavanaugh got the majority approval of the same committee that would not give such a majority nod to Clarence Thomas. But the latter now is Justice Thomas— as Brett Kavanaugh will be soon enough. And he yet will be even greater if he considers cutting back a bit on the beer because, as America saw when Robert Dole started doing Viagra commercials, certain things are perfectly fine but do not lend dignity.

The one-week delay further will give the American Bar Association comfort to continue endorsing Brett Kavanaugh’s credentials for the Supreme Court. It will give political cover for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. In fairness, not all Republican senators come from deep red states, and the Republicans needCollins in the Senate for tax-cut bills and to ratify other judicial appointments, too. If a one-week delay, a meaningless FBI investigation that will uncover nothing and that means nothing, will help secure the continued backing of the ABA, so be it. Along the way, the quick mini-FBI supplemental investigation — presumably interviewing Mark Judge as he deals with his alcoholism and severe health issue, perhaps interviewing the other one or two people who repeatedly have denied knowing anything about a party that is so central to Dr. Ford’s truth — further will take thewind out of the Democrats’ only remaining demand that has even a sound of reasonableness.

In the end, what is the FBI going to find? Unlessthey re-hire Andrew McCabe and assign Peter Strzok to conduct the interviews, what are they going to find? Indeed, hearkening back to their last high-profile investigation — something about some email server in a bathroom — they will be careful and circumspect, knowing that they are being watched. They will find that they cannot locate the house of the party. They cannot determine the date. The alleged witnesses do not remember a thing about it because it never happened as alleged. The FBI will find that Dr. Ford indeed may have experienced an attempted rape at some previous time nearly forty years ago, and some man indeed may have tried to tear off her swim outfit and may have placed a hand on her mouth and may almost accidentally have killed her. But the FBI will come back in a week with little more — and nothing connected to Brett Kavanaugh.

The hapless Democrats — gritting their teeth when the TV camera lights are turned off — will have gotten their FBI investigation. Suburban women will have seen that the Republicans, even the GOP men, are fair. Jeff Flake and Susan Collins will have gotten the cover they need or want to vote on the Senate floor for Judge Kavanaugh. Lisa Murkowski will fall into line. Reading the tea leaves, Joe Manchin probably will vote for Kavanaugh, too — making it at least 52-48. Maybe also Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; maybe not. That all will breathe real life into Republican efforts to win precious Red State Senate seats from Resisters Jon Tester in Montana, Claire McCaskill, in Missouri, and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Or maybe another one or two of those Resisters will capitulate, thus lending even greater legitimacy to Justice Kavanaugh’s elevation and making the Republicans appear even more reasonable.

Along the way, Deborah Ramirez will fall to the wayside as one more quirky Wikipedia entry for high-schoolers to research in American history term papers in twenty years. “Swetnik” will be relegated to nothing more than a paragraph or perhaps just a sentence within the “Avenatti” entry, a footnote alongside the sobriquet “Creepy Porn Lawyer.”

Most importantly, procedurally the Kavanaugh nomination now is voted out of committee by majority recommendation. The deed is done. All that is left is for the Senate floor vote to finalize the inevitable: approval of the conservative justice who will nudge the balance of the United States Supreme Court towards the conservative judicial philosophy that the voters have been choosing but continually have been thwarted in realizing through four decades of Haynesworth, Carswell, Bork, Brennan, Blackmun, Souter, and similar debacles.

Link