Trump court pick tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

but confirmed on friday 29th of september by majority vote thatsbetter

 

The senate do not investigate perjury, in case you did not know, and their vote was denied by the President and the case handed over to the FBI, did that make you feel better?

[Jingthing]

If this was really going to be a fair job interview process, Kavanaugh would be voted down simply based on his disgusting, angry, toxically partisan, conspiracy theory promoting performance at the hearing about the alleged abuse. It's one thing having personal political views. That is fine. But it is very much NOT OK for a judge to be a proxy republican party of "trump" political operative. Such a man is not fit be any kind of judge, anywhere!

As far as the accusation, it's impossible to prove it if it did happen. Again, it is not a court of law. If it was, there would be no case at this point. But there is a case that Ford's testimony should be taken seriously as far as the level of a JOB INTERVIEW. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Jingthing

[roobaa01]

experts on tv are hired political clowns who give their biased opinion in the political mainstream, only question who pays. when i remember these expert clowns on cnn last week, talking about racisism in the kavanaugh case , a white man and a white woman, hillarious.

 

 

 

wbr

roobaa01

[utalkin2me]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's not going to happen. It would have to be voluntary and he won't volunteer for that. He also stated (in this case correctly) that such tests are not considered evidence worthy of being presented in court trials. Of course he is not in a court trial with this, more like a job interview process, but still, it won't happen. 

I know it probably wont happen, but they should force or at least ask him to do it. You don't get to say "i am willing to do anything to cooperate", thus making it sound like you are innocent, and then reject the request to take a polygraph. 

 

The polygraph should not be used as evidence, bit just as everything in the entire hearing, a tool to help folks make their decisions. 

 

What in heck are polygraph machines for? Why not just get rid of them. I think in these he said she saids, if one party takes one and passes and another party either takes it and fails or refuses, that should be at least an indicator to help sway people off the fence. 

[melvinmelvin]

10 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

What?  The video is from someone who has no credentials and just claims to be an expert, she is also a conspiracy theorist and a Sandy Hook denier.

 

The expert I posted is actually an expert, they are a professor in this field, and they say the opposite of what your YouTube blogger reckons.

 

jeez man,

you are way dafter than the average daft American

I know zilch re who is speaking the truth, the lady or the chap

you know zilch re the same

 

just wait and see what FBI comes up with

 

 

[roobaa01]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The senate do not investigate perjury, in case you did not know, and their vote was denied by the President and the case handed over to the FBI, did that make you feel better?

 

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The senate do not investigate perjury, in case you did not know, and their vote was denied by the President and the case handed over to the FBI, did that make you feel better?

it is known, to me  confirmation vote for his final senate vote in 6 days and cleverly timed fbi probe to win over shaky democrats. wbr roobaa01

[utalkin2me]

29 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's not going to happen. It would have to be voluntary and he won't volunteer for that. He also stated (in this case correctly) that such tests are not considered evidence worthy of being presented in court trials. Of course he is not in a court trial with this, more like a job interview process, but still, it won't happen. 

Plus, I just looked this up, and kav is on record stating the government has "satisfactorily explained" how polygraphs serve a useful purpose for job interviews.

 

I suppose his own words do not apply when it is his butt on the line? Whatever the case, if they simply asked him to take one, it would take some serious backpeddling away from his previous statements to get out of it. Even the fact that he is not willing to take one can speak to people. 

[atyclb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

 

The efficacy of polygraphs is debated in the scientific community. In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience.^[13] In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". The review also warns against generalization from these findings to justify the use of polygraphs—"polygraph accuracy for screening purposes is almost certainly lower than what can be achieved by specific-incident polygraph tests in the field"—and notes some examinees may be able to take countermeasures to produce deceptive results.^[14]

The validity of polygraph testing is again called into question with the relevant-irrelevant testing technique, designed to gauge reactions of subjects against crime questions and other non-crime related questions. Studies have indicated that this questioning technique is not ideal, as many innocent subjects exert a heightened physiological reaction to the crime relevant questions.^[2]

Polygraphy is widely criticized.^[15][16][17] Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.^[16][18] The utility among sex offenders is also poor, with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population.^[19][20]

Even using the high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy, false positives do occur, and these people suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."^[21] In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community".^[22] In 2001, William Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, concluded that:

Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.^[23]

Summarizing the consensus in psychological research, professor David W. Martin, PhD, from North Carolina State University, states that people have tried to use the polygraph for measuring human emotions, but there is simply no royal road to (measuring) human emotions.^[24] Therefore, since one cannot reliably measure human emotions (especially when one has an interest in hiding his/her emotions), the idea of valid detection of truth or falsehood through measuring respiratory rate, blood volume, pulse 

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

 

it is known, to me  confirmation vote for his final senate vote in 6 days and cleverly timed fbi probe to win over shaky democrats. wbr roobaa01

The only democrat that may vote yes in Manchin. It's entirely possible if not likely that Kavanaugh will be confirmed swiftly after the quick job FBI investigation. But really at this point nobody knows for sure. 

 

As I said before, I'd like to see a poll here asking two questions.

 

Do you think AND do you want Kavanaugh will be --

 

Confirmed

Voted down

Withdrawn before vote

Edited September 30, 2018 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 12:56 PM, DoctorG said:

I believe that she was attacked and I believe she honestly believes it was Bret. What I have a problem with is repressed/recovered memories. These have been shown to be open to suggestion and false memory. I cannot see a way out of this as she has not provided enough detail of the when/where to prove, or Bret to disprove, the venue and timing.

No winners in this.

Agreed. I was at an end of year polytechnic party in the 70s when a friend of mine chipped a tooth of a female with a fire hose nozzle ( it had got a bit out of hand with food being thrown around and hoses being used to wet everyone ). Years later I met her again, and she accused me of being the one that chipped her tooth! This was only a few years too, not nearly as long as Ford waited.

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

jeez man,

you are way dafter than the average daft American

I know zilch re who is speaking the truth, the lady or the chap

you know zilch re the same

 

just wait and see what FBI comes up with

 

 

You're quoting a sandy hook denier.

Please.

[helpisgood]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 In America your innocent until proven guilty!  Before the hearing, The left politicians saying that JK was guilty and had to prove his innocents!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/09/23/no_justice_in_guilt_by_accusation_454120.html

 

How many times must this be repeated? 

 

The Kavanaugh hearings are not a criminal trial; thus, your stated burden of proof is not applicable here.  Kavanaugh is not facing at this hearing a possible criminal punishment, but a possibility of not getting the job he now seeks.   

 

Therefore, it is, in simpler terms, a job interview for a lifetime position in the federal government.  Thus, the voting senators can vote using a standard closer to being "like Caesar's wife" than the one you have stated.  Maybe some senators do not want someone on the highest court in the land with a certain amount of unseemly suspicion over their head.  This same kind of situation can occur in other job interviews.  The interviewer need not, legally, prove guilt to have good cause to not hire the candidate.  

 

  

Edited September 30, 2018 by helpisgood
added a word

[utalkin2me]

Case to polygraph Kav:

 

-This is a hearing, not a court case, so it is entirely permissible.

 

-Kav has stated to the committe he would "do whatever the committee asks" when he was asked if he would take one. This would be like telling a police officer it is ok to search the vehicle, then stopping him before he opens the glove box. You do not get to have it both ways.

 

-Kav is on record stating he supports the use of polygraphs for government job interviews. 

 

-Ford has made a very convincing and credible case both as to the events that happened, and why she would not report the incident until now.

 

-This really could come down to he said she said, since it was so long ago. And, it is hard to blame the victim for not reporting the incident at the time. This could be the only evidence the committe had to consider. 

 

Seriously, I cannot imagine a more perfect scenario for a polygraph. Force him to take one. If he will not, ask hime why he said he would. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by utalkin2me

[atyclb]

i wonder if kavanaugh's prior 6 fbi background checks used polygraphs? if they did seems likely questions would be asked about criminal behavior in the past.

[Jim1000]

I'm surprised Trump's administration  has descended into chaos , blame and finger pointing .

It was not supposed to be like this - was it ?

[helpisgood]

12 minutes ago, Jim1000 said:

I'm surprised Trump's administration  has descended into chaos , blame and finger pointing .

It was not supposed to be like this - was it ?

 

You're right!  He promised to only hire "the best."

 

Of course, he did not clarify best at what.

Edited September 30, 2018 by helpisgood
added last sentence

[Chomper Higgot]

 

[mikebike]

34 minutes ago, atyclb said:

i wonder if kavanaugh's prior 6 fbi background checks used polygraphs? if they did seems likely questions would be asked about criminal behavior in the past.

Mr. Kavanaugh has not been polygraphed previously.

 

He has, however, given his judicial opinion on polygraphs in certain circumstances, including hiring:

 

In Sack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016), a case about FOIA fees, Judge Kavanaugh waxed philosophic about the value of polygraphs in making hiring decisions:

 

"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."

[atyclb]

31 minutes ago, mikebike said:

1 hour ago, atyclb said:

i wonder if kavanaugh's prior 6 fbi background checks used polygraphs? if they did seems likely questions would be asked about criminal behavior in the past.

Mr. Kavanaugh has not been polygraphed previously.

 

He has, however, given his judicial opinion on polygraphs in certain circumstances, including hiring:

 

In Sack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016), a case about FOIA fees, Judge Kavanaugh waxed philosophic about the value of polygraphs in making hiring decisions:

 

"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."

 

 

 

interesting. i would have thought the fbi used polygraph but this suggests they do not place much credibility in it.

[riclag]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Hogwash.

 

In trial before an American court of law you are ‘presumed innocent untill proven guilty’.

 

Kavanaugh is not being tried in a court of law, he’s applying for a job.

 

Nobody owes him that job, he has no rights to the job.

 

The job offer is conditional on the vote of The (full) Senate.

 

It is The (full) Senate’s Constitutional duty to examine the fitness of the candidate for the position before voting on him being promoted to that position.

 

Quit this ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘Kavanaugh the victim’ garbage.

 

 

 Put any name on it you like!Strange job interview  ! Being condemned for farting and silly yearbook references. 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

jeez man,

you are way dafter than the average daft American

I know zilch re who is speaking the truth, the lady or the chap

you know zilch re the same

 

just wait and see what FBI comes up with

 

 

 

I didn't claim to know who is telling the truth, I just stated a fact, that one so called expert who has been cited has no credentials, is a Sandy Hook denier and has a YouTube blog, while the other so called expert who has been cited is a professor of behavioural psychology, please explain how it makes me daft to point that fact out? 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, roobaa01 said:

 

it is known, to me  confirmation vote for his final senate vote in 6 days and cleverly timed fbi probe to win over shaky democrats. wbr roobaa01

 

Sure, Trump asked the FBI to investigate to win over the democrats, nothing to do with his candidate having even more women come forward making criminal allegations against him.

[KhunFred]

Kav is white trash, just like the President who nominated him. Sociopaths tend to choose their own kind.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, helpisgood said:

 

How many times must this be repeated? 

 

The Kavanaugh hearings are not a criminal trial; thus, your stated burden of proof is not applicable here.  Kavanaugh is not facing at this hearing a possible criminal punishment, but a possibility of not getting the job he now seeks.   

 

Therefore, it is, in simpler terms, a job interview for a lifetime position in the federal government.  Thus, the voting senators can vote using a standard closer to being "like Caesar's wife" than the one you have stated.  Maybe some senators do not want someone on the highest court in the land with a certain amount of unseemly suspicion over their head.  This same kind of situation can occur in other job interviews.  The interviewer need not, legally, prove guilt to have good cause to not hire the candidate.  

 

  

 

Sort of like, pretty much qualified, but unsavory.

 

 

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, KhunFred said:

Kav is white trash, just like the President who nominated him. Sociopaths tend to choose their own kind.

Not exactly white trash but he does feel he is above the law.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why.

 

 

The elite learn early that they’re special — and that they won’t face consequences.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaugh-is-lying-his-upbringing-explains-why/2018/09/27/2b596314-c270-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html

[Kieran00001]

You don't have to scratch far into Brett's career history to see what he has been about, a judge who devoted his career to protecting the swamp from being drained.

 

Quote

 

Examining the cases where an appellate judge has disagreed with and dissented from his or her colleagues, therefore, can be particularly revealing. And that is precisely the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

 

Judge Kavanaugh’s 61 dissents from his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are consistently right-wing and reflect a narrow-minded elitist view, generally seeking to favor big business and other authority and harm the interests of workers, the environment, and those who have suffered abuse by government officials, often in cases of national impact.¹  These include dissents on reproductive freedom, the Affordable Care Act, and many other issues. He has consistently voted to strike down laws and regulations that have protected consumers, sometimes disagreeing even with other Republican-appointed colleagues. 

 

http://www.pfaw.org/report/the-dissents-of-judge-brett-kavanaugh-a-narrow-minded-elitist-who-is-out-of-the-mainstream/

 

[riclag]

4 hours ago, Becker said:

Maybe Graland didn't sexually assault anyone. Do you agree with the GOP's tactic of stalling any replacement fro a year?

 

PS. You sound more and more shrill for every day. Is it your inner snowflake that is emerging?

Becker,

 

3 people in the room , two claim it didn't happen while she said it did.

 And, “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” Judge said in a letter to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-i-will-cooperate-with-fbi-probe-of-sex-assault-claims.html

Ordinary citizens can see this job interview was blinded by the screaming get in your face, claiming murderer, serial rapist, restaurant groping stalkers, resistance movement.

 

[Kieran00001]

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

the screaming get in your face, claiming murderer, serial rapist, restaurant groping stalkers, resistance movement.

 

Quote

screaming get in your face, claiming murderer, serial rapist, restaurant groping stalkers, resistance movement.

 

What do you think that movement is resisting?

[helpisgood]

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Sort of like, pretty much qualified, but unsavory.

 

 

 

Well, let's rephrase that a bit more carefully lest we read too much into my point.  

 

I did not state whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified.  I merely addressed what criterion the senators can use.  

 

I agree with you if you mean that the nominee may have the requisite skills and knowledge of a SC justice, but senators are free to decide that such a nominee's character flaws may taint the dignity and respect of the highest court of the land.  

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

Great talk on the video.  Thanks!

 

Maybe we should replace Kavanaugh with this fine and thoughtful man.  You don't need to go to prep school and Yale Law School to become a wise and good person.