Let me put this as bluntly as possible. If this woman didn't given enough of a damn over 35 years to report this 'so called' incident, why should I (or anyone else) give a damn about it now. Go the hell away.

Next up...Let's vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
This is just a bunch of horseshit.

I do not believe that anyone would remember who an overly frisky drunk teenager (weren't we all) was after 35 fucking years.

No, Gustofer, we weren't ALL like that. I was a "goody two shoes" all through school, and never took a drink; I didn't actually "party", either. My social activities were with my extended family, usually, and they didn't use alcohol.

However, I agree that the matter is BS and should be ignored. Kavanaugh has denied the event, and the witness identified by the accuser has also denied it--what more should anyone want?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Let me put this as bluntly as possible. If this woman didn't given enough of a damn over 35 years to report this 'so called' incident, why should I (or anyone else) give a damn about it now. Go the hell away.

Next up...Let's vote.

This.

#Lookatmetoo

And I’ll Just add this as well...

Polygraphs rely on on stress to indicate deception, and that stress in large part is the result of facing some sort of consequences (not getting the job, losing the job, etc. ) for not being truthful. As well as the inherent stress of being “caught” in a lie.

I would be stressed if I say “No I didn’t do heroin in high school” when I have a sealed juvenile record that proved otherwise or there were a lot of people who could refute my claim. The chance of being found out increases the stress.

If I only did it once, by myself with some horse I found in the basement of a deserted house and no one else was around and I never told anyone about it, then I could lie with impunity knowing nothing could be presented to contradict my story.

No consequences to be faced with her story, and if she is a righteous believer in “anything for the cause” or “the ends justify the means” then I imagine that would greatly improves ones odds of “successfully” passing the test.

Especially when it is being administered by a person (former FBI or not) being paid by a party who has a particular expected outcome in mind.

Interesting article about what might happen next with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. I was not aware about this part assuming the article is accurate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...ughs-nomination-now/

"What do the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Jeff Flake of Arizona, do? The Senate Judiciary Committee has a 11-10 Republican majority. So one Republican refusing to back Kavanaugh would at least briefly stall the nomination. Flake and Sasse are regular Trump critics. The Arizona senator has already indicated that he is no longer comfortable backing Kavanaugh — at least for now — and wants a scheduled committee vote on Sept. 20 delayed. That is big. McConnell could still bring the nomination to the full Senate if it fails in the Judiciary Committee. But if Flake is a “no,” I think that might have a real impact on other potential swing senators in this process."

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Let me put this as bluntly as possible. If this woman didn't given enough of a damn over 35 years to report this 'so called' incident, why should I (or anyone else) give a damn about it now. Go the hell away.

Next up...Let's vote.

I agree 100 percent. I was just thinking the same thing.

And you guys are STILL talking about this nonsense!! You are allowing yourselves to be lead around by the nose, guys. Wake up.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
And I’ll Just add this as well...

Polygraphs rely on on stress to indicate deception, and that stress in large part is the result of facing some sort of consequences (not getting the job, losing the job, etc. ) for not being truthful. As well as the inherent stress of being “caught” in a lie.

I would be stressed if I say “No I didn’t do heroin in high school” when I have a sealed juvenile record that proved otherwise or there were a lot of people who could refute my claim. The chance of being found out increases the stress.

If I only did it once, by myself with some horse I found in the basement of a deserted house and no one else was around and I never told anyone about it, then I could lie with impunity knowing nothing could be presented to contradict my story.

No consequences to be faced with her story, and if she is a righteous believer in “anything for the cause” or “the ends justify the means” then I imagine that would greatly improves ones odds of “successfully” passing the test.

Especially when it is being administered by a person (former FBI or not) being paid by a party who has a particular expected outcome in mind.

This is absolutely correct. Add to it that many within the FBI have shown their true colors as of late and the fact that the examiner can assist the examinee by artfully crafting the questions, really renders the test questionable. Also, under circumstances where the examinee is paying the examiner, there is a financial motivation to get to the desired result. This can be accomplished by asking the same questions over and over until the examinee becomes desensitized to any perceived stress of getting caught. For example, the test could be administered 3, 10 or 20 times, and even one version with no deception indicated will “prove” the examinee passed. These are not admissible for a reason because the science does not stand up under scrutiny.

Looks like Kavanaugh's mother, Martha, was the presiding judge in a foreclosure case in 1996 involving the accuser's parents.

Credit the link above to a 'comment' posted to this article on The Conservative Treehouse.
__________

Grassley says the vote on Kavanaugh will go forward without delay.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...t-kavanaugh-n2519528

quote:

Originally posted by JDSigManiac:
These are not admissible for a reason because the science does not stand up under scrutiny.

Even without test manipulation shenanigans, anyone with extensive experience observing the results of criminal investigation polygraphs should know they are not infallible, and despite the fact that the exams under such circumstances should be the most reliable. The CIA officer Aldrich Ames passed a poly at the height of his activities in revealing some of the most sensitive CIA secrets to his Soviet handlers. On the other hand, an examiner told me that a suspect in the theft of military machine guns had highest “deception indicated” score he’d ever gotten. Later investigation conclusively proved that the examinee (and several others who also “failed”) had absolutely no involvement in the crime. I have personally observed other innocent suspects fail polygraph exams and demonstrably guilty ones pass.

I don’t recall the details now, but a few years ago a Federal government organization even recommended that they not be used in conjunction with security clearance background investigations.

Even assuming that an exam was conducted properly, the results in a case like this are meaningless.

Reopened, since we seem to be coming to the end of this ridiculous, shameful attempt to derail a qualified candidate.

Yay!


Chuck Grassley has essentially told the Democrats and their Lying Stooge Ford to either shit or get off the pot. With everything that has happened and the facts as we know them, such as they are, the Dems seem to have stepped on a rake. Instead of torpedoing Trump's SCOTUS nominee and energizing their base, they have done exactly the opposite as we head into the home stretch towards the Midterms.

Welcome to the court Mr. Cavanaugh. Next up RBG. Swing low sweet chariot...

Grassley sent the DEMs a smoking letter

"This is but the latest - and most serious - of your side's abuse of this confirmation process"

I pray to God the Republicans keep their spines about this whole BS affair, but I fear they may puss out at the last second.

Rush Limbaugh had something the other day about the lawyer who Kavanaugh has hired, she apparently specializes in defamation and is a real bulldog. It would be ideal to see HER question this Christine Ford and not a bunch of "old white men attacking a defenseless woman" as the Democrats will screech about I'm sure.

Grassley's letter is epic! I LOVE it! Thanks for posting, sdy.

Got to hand to to the Republicans this time. Normally they do their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but they have played this one very well. It seems Feinstein screwed the pooch by bringing this allegation as a last minute ambush. Not only did it taint the accusation, but it looks like it was perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the GOPs patience for Democratic abuse of the process. Even Sen. Collins is pissed off.

And an interesting bit just posted on PowerLine PowerLine:

"But as to Dr. Ford’s polygraph, did she in fact “pass” it? Buried way down in the original Washington Post story is the only reference to the matter, worded this way:

On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

Let the end of that sentence sink in slowly, for the wording is strange indeed. This sounds like the polygraph measured a tautology. “Is this your statement?” “Yes.” “Congratulations: You passed!” Perhaps the Post reporter, Emma Brown, is merely sloppy, but note that the story doesn’t literally claim that Ford “passed” a polygraph.

A Power Line reader with a background in sex crimes prosecution flagged this detail:

As a sex crimes/homicide prosecutor for many years, to my ears, this wording was purposefully written to mislead. Look at what it does not say. The reporter does not say that the polygraph found the accuser credible when she said that Kavanaugh committed this act. And from my experience that would be because the accuser was either not asked that question, the result of her response was inconclusive, or that she was found deceptive to that question."

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Got to hand to to the Republicans this time. Normally they do their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but they have played this one very well. It seems Feinstein screwed the pooch by bringing this allegation as a last minute ambush. Not only did it taint the accusation, but it looks like it was perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the GOPs patience for Democratic abuse of the process. Even Sen. Collins is pissed off.

Yes, i agree.

And I don't think the Republicans will cave on this. The Supreme Court is too important, and they know it. It's no time to be weak kneed jelly bellies.

The dems have way overplayed this. The nonsense they are spewing on tv is so contrived and simply absurd on its face. They're calling this woman a "survivor" for chrissakes.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


The dems have way overplayed this.

They nearly ALWAYS overplay their hand, it's like they can't help themselves.