Kavanaugh Hearing

Now he’s trying to claim the UN wasn’t laughing at him.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

I missed the part where BK says polygraph tests are infallible or anything close to that. Keep trying...

 

Now they have specific allegations, names and can ask focused questions about these three claims. These claims deserve the scrutiny. These allegations have not been investigated.

 

Have you read the polygraph exam report? It's almost laughable. She wrote out her allegation and then was asked two questions: 1. Is any part of your written statement false? 2. Did you make any of it up?

That. Is. It.

Wow, just wow.

 

Israel/Palestine is a “real estate deal”

I’m dead.

 

Three women have come forward and one did so after people who knew her provided her name. Time to investigate the way the pros do, instead of prejudging.

 

I'd also like to hear how Dr. Ford got to Maryland in to take the polygraph exam. It's been reported that she is afraid to fly or travel in any form that doesn't have multiple exits due to her alleged attack in high school. Did she drive across the country in early August to take the exam?

 

But but but Brett Kavanaugh said...

 

I think her letter to Feinstein said that she was on vacation in the mid-Atlantic region in early August, but would return to California on August 10th.

 

Again, this isn't a criminal trial. The standard to deny Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS is lower than it would be needed to convict him a in a court of law. As it should be. As the saying go, better to let 100 guilty go free than to convict one innocent person, which is why the standards to convict are so high. So while a lie detector test is not admissible in court, the fact that Ford passed one is relevant.

The question isn't if there is enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of sexual assault, it's is there enough evidence to question his history, attitude towards women, honesty, and overall moral turpitude? And the evidence we have so far puts all these things into question. Three women have now come forward and have made claims of sexual abuse. Several people have corroborated that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker and became belligerent when he was drunk. And that Kavanaugh was a frequent party attendee at parties where some awful things were the norm. All the while, Kavanaugh is portraying himself as an innocent alter boy in the press.

If this was nothing but political, why not go after Gorsuch the same way? After all, he and Kavanaugh went to the same school and are around the same age. Maybe it was because Gorsuch wasn't a member of the partying crowd and he actually has a clean background? I was opposed to Gorsuch based on his opinions, but philosophical differences are not a reason to keep someone off the SCOTUS. And while Garland got a raw deal, that doesn't mean Gorsuch shouldn't have been confirmed. And I agree Gorsuch probably should have received more yeah votes than he did.

But with Kavanaugh, there are now three allegations from women who have little to gain and a lot to lose by placing themselves in the conservative cross hairs. We should at least listen to Kasich who is actually putting country over party and at the very least, delay the vote until there can thorough investigation.

 

So if something isn't infallible, you think that discredits it? Yeah, you're going to need a better argument than that.

In fact, I'll just quote the entire passage for you, and you can point me to where Brett Kavanaugh agrees with you that polygraphs can't be trusted:
The reports at issue in this case assist law enforcement agencies in taking “proactive steps” to deter illegal activity and ensure national security. As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.” Declaration of Alesia Y. Williams, Defense Intelligence Agency, Chief of FOIA Services Section, at Joint Appendix 226. In Morley v. CIA, we stated: “Background investigations conducted to assess an applicant's qualification, such as ... clearance and investigatory processes, inherently relate to law enforcement.” 508 F.3d 1108, 1128–29 (D.C.Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes. It has also explained how the reports assessing the efficacy of those examinations and identifying needed fixes likewise serve law enforcement purposes. Put simply, the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool. The reports were compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Second, the reports contain information about techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations. As the Government points out, the reports detail whether a particular agency's polygraph procedures and techniques are effective. The reports identify strengths and weaknesses of particular polygraph programs. In describing the effectiveness of polygraph techniques and procedures, the reports necessarily would disclose information about the underlying techniques and procedures themselves, including when the agencies are likely to employ them.

Third, release of the requested reports could reasonably risk circumvention of the law. As the Government explained in its Vaughn index responding to Sack's request, the reports identify deficiencies in law enforcement agencies' polygraph programs. Their release could enable criminal suspects, employees with ill intentions, and others to subvert polygraph examinations.

Sack v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 823 F.3d 687, 694–95 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

This is a FOIA case where Kavanaugh allowed the government to refuse to release the reports. Why? Because he was worried that the reports would allow people to subvert AN IMPORTANT LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL.

Feel free to square your opinion that her polygraph can't be trusted with Kavanaugh's statements above.

 

To bring this back to Florida politics, that (2 question polygraph on whether a written statement is true) is the same format polygraph Jack Latvala took to "prove" he did not sexually harass Senate aides and lobbyists, and that everyone laughed off, about a month before he resigned.

 

I'm flattered by your desire to engage me in a straw man argument multiple times in a given day, but I'll pass on this one. You're right. Her polygraph is bulletproof. So much so, she only needed to answer two questions. I mean, doesn't get much more infallible than that.

 

Her statement is the exact story she's been telling. She said no part of it is false and that she didn't make any of it up. The polygraph found no deception in either answer. What's your issue again?

 

Trump said he may delay the Rosenstein meeting so as not to step on the hearing. I wonder if he cleared that with his strategy people?

 

You sure about that?
Jack Latvala claims polygraph test clears him of sexual harassment accusations
Latvala said it was the first time he had taken a polygraph test.
Andrews prepared an affidavit and Robinson read three statements during the polygraph interview. With each of the statements, Latvala denied harassment.

Latvala said Andrews also recorded sworn statements on video this week from at least 15 women who are willing to be character witnesses for Latvala, who has been one of the most influential members of the Legislature.

"Have I made mistakes? Am I a little looser than I ought to be with my mouth? Do I tell people they look good? Do I tell people they've lost weight, that's a nice dress? Yes, I'm guilty,'' the Republican senator told the Times/Herald. "But I'm not guilty of touching anybody against their will, and I will go down fighting and swinging as hard as I can to demonstrate that, because this is my name."

Latvala, 66, said three questions in his two-hour polygraph test were framed based on the most "egregious" accusations six women anonymously made against him in Politico.

In the polygraph examination, Latvala answered "true" to the following statements:
• "As described in the Politico Article dated November 3, 2017, at no time did I ever intentionally touch a female's private areas such as her buttocks, lower frontal abdomen, or breasts in a crowded Senate elevator.
• "As described in the Politico Article dated November 3, 2017, at no time did I use my body to block the view of my hands while I rubbed the leg of a female Senate staffer while she cried.
• "As described in the Politico Article dated November 3, 2017, at no time did I intentionally touch the breast of a female or cup a woman's ass in the Capitol Rotunda against their will."

 

I get it now. You're trolling us. Well done. You had me going there for a couple days.

 

You have clearly never gone through a polygraph. That is not how it is done.

 

Yea, you might not want to go there, Mr. She was just groped on a bed.

 

Here's the polygraph report from Latvala: Polygraph report

The ones you named were the three statements in his written statement.

His polygraph exam consisted of "Is the sworn statement the truth regarding the harrassment accusation?" and "Is the document you signed in my presence the truth?"