I'm kind of curious as to why she already took a polygraph when she never intended to go public?
My guess is she initially was considering going public, and then ultimately decided not to do it at that time.I'm kind of curious as to why she already took a polygraph when she never intended to go public?
I'm kind of curious as to why she already took a polygraph when she never intended to go public?
The problem I'm having is with their being documentation that this was discussed with the woman's therapist six years ago. That does not mean I'm declaring Kavanaugh guilty, but the evidence seems sufficient to postpone conformation until this can be properly investigated.
You shouldn't even bother mentioning a polygraph. Polygraphs are bullshit and they do nothing to help an argument. They always have been bullshit. People just "feel" that it means something and the myth is perpetuated.I would point out the accuser apparently passed a polygraph concerning her accusation...
www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/kavanaugh-allegation-anonymous-republicans-825855
The thing that tips the balance for me in her favor is that this isn't some concocted stuff out of thin air. This has actual paperwork going back to 2012.
Who the hell knew about Kavanaugh then? But she was in counseling then for the event with him.
This isn't some gimmick, its verifiable and it is real.
He was a Federal Judge and had significant roles in the Bush Admin and(IIRC) during the Clinton investigations. I don't think he was considered a potential SC Judge at that time though.
You shouldn't even bother mentioning a polygraph. Polygraphs are bullshit and they do nothing to help an argument. They always have been bullshit. People just "feel" that it means something and the myth is perpetuated.
This is simply BS on your part.You shouldn't even bother mentioning a polygraph. Polygraphs are bullshit and they do nothing to help an argument. They always have been bullshit. People just "feel" that it means something and the myth is perpetuated.
This is simply BS on your part.
They are not perfect, but there is a reason intelligence agencies use them. Its true they are not sufficiently definitive to use in a criminal court of law, but they are in fact a piece of supporting evidence which can be used to help assess the credibility of someone's testimony. (It is possible for someone to be nervous enough to flunk a polygraph even when being truthful, but that's not what is at issue here.)
The criteria for Supreme Court Justice being confirmed as a nominee is supposed to be significantly different than there might not be enough to convict the individual in a criminal court of law.
lol its junk science. ive taken one, lied my ass off and passed it.
PSA: never ever take a polygraph if you are accused of something.
According to the woman's story it was Kavanaugh and a friend she was upstairs in a room. Kavanaugh says it never happened, his friend also says it never happened. So it isn't even a he said/she said.Allegedly a drunk teen tried to force himself on a teen girl, and failed.
One person. He said / she said.
It simply doesn't pass muster to pass judgement on him for.
Why? She could have come forward earlier and Democratic Sen. Feinstein could have released the letter months ago. Why delay it?At a minimum it needs to be investigated.
I won't be surprised if the Republicans try to ignore it and rush the vote through. Remember this is the same party that was going to send a pedophile to the Senate. You people don't really care.
If Trump were found nude with his dick lodged in the ass of a 10 year old his supporters wouldn't care. As long as the 10 year old is a girl.
Fuck you, its legal. Get over it, you little bitch.Why? She could have come forward earlier and Democratic Sen. Feinstein could have released the letter months ago. Why delay it?
What's legal? Not the alleged crime which happened 36 or 37 years ago depending on how the story changes.Fuck you, its legal. Get over it, you little bitch.
Why? She could have come forward earlier and Democratic Sen. Feinstein could have released the letter months ago. Why delay it?
What's legal? Not the alleged crime which happened 36 or 37 years ago depending on how the story changes.
Its legal to tell her story now. Bitching about it is pointless. Her story hasn't changed.What's legal? Not the alleged crime which happened 36 or 37 years ago depending on how the story changes.
Why delay it? As long as the woman doesn't even know the year it allegedly happened or where it allegedly happened there's no way Kavanaugh can prove his innocence in a 36 or 37 year old alleged encounter. Or is that the whole point?Feinstein didn't release the letter because Ford told her that she didn't want to come forward. The existence of the letter was leaked so Feinstein had to do something while protecting Ford's privacy so she sent it to the FBI. Realizing that her privacy has been compromised, Ford changed her mind & has decided to come forward.
Yes it has, the psychiatrist's notes say there were 4 guys, not 2.Its legal to tell her story now. Bitching about it is pointless. Her story hasn't changed.
Need to link thatYes it has, the psychiatrist's notes say there were 4 guys, not 2.