Kavanaugh Confirmation

#2,201
#2,201
1972 Grad said:
The insane liberal in her is probably convinced that he did it. She probably believes it.
Click to expand...

I watched the Laura Ingram show and she had a polygraph expert on and he said they aren't accurate and they dont really determine if someone is lying. It was very interesting to learn how they really work. He said it depends on the questions being asked, etc...
 
#2,203
#2,203
volinbham said:
Interesting, 3 to 1 but we have to believe the one.

Also thought this was interesting

"Ford's attorney Lisa Banks said Tuesday on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" following the release of Ford's letter that Ford will talk with the committee but that she's not prepared for a hearing that soon.
"She will talk with the committee," Banks said. "She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday. This just came out 48 hours ago.""

No, it came out in July. In early August your client took a polygraph in preparation to defend her story.
Click to expand...

One begins to wonder at what point the shield of "blaming the victim" gets dropped for perfectly legit questioning of an accuser.
 
#2,204
#2,204
Boston Vol said:
Another one of the guys that Ford said was at the party has come out and denied it.

“One of the other two guys that Ford identified as being present at the party comes forward. He says he has "no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh"

https://t.co/45dcTCywxM
Click to expand...

He must be thinking of another party at a different house at a different time.
 
#2,205
#2,205
The lawyers letter has said her email has now been hacked and she's being impersonated online. The unfounded a accusations are typical coming from dems.
 
#2,206
#2,206
happy-go_vol said:
I watched the Laura Ingram show and she had a polygraph expert on and he said they aren't accurate and they dont really determine if someone is lying. It was very interesting to learn how they really work. He said it depends on the questions being asked, etc...
Click to expand...
There is a reason they’re inadmissible. A liar can beat a polygraph, a truthful person can fail it.

I like watching the crime shows when a suspect won’t take a polygraph. The cops go nuts, clearly he’s their guy. Well no, if he fails it you say he did it, if he passes it you say he’s lying. There’s no upside to taking one.
 
#2,210
#2,210
hndog609 said:
One begins to wonder at what point the shield of "blaming the victim" gets dropped for perfectly legit questioning of an accuser.
Click to expand...

I read a couple articles (and comments from Dem congressional members) and the message is clear - she is not to be questioned. She is to be heard.

One of the articles was about Collins request for cross-examination by the lawyers for each side. There was a full-on freak out that it was a tragedy that she would be subject to that (interestingly, they didn't weigh in on whether or not K. should be subject to interrogation by Ford's lawyers).
 
#2,213
#2,213
volinbham said:
I read a couple articles (and comments from Dem congressional members) and the message is clear - she is not to be questioned. She is to be heard.

One of the articles was about Collins request for cross-examination by the lawyers for each side. There was a full-on freak out that it was a tragedy that she would be subject to that (interestingly, they didn't weigh in on whether or not K. should be subject to interrogation by Ford's lawyers).
Click to expand...

They dont want that, they dont want to be held accountable for this political stunt
 
#2,218
#2,218
hndog609 said:
There's 2K+ posts in this thread so I'm not sure if this has been answered; has anyone at the top end of this thing come out and categorically stated that "investigating" this supposed incident is/is not within the FBI's purview?
Click to expand...
I think the comparison would be a periodic background investigation like for a security clearance but much more expansive vs a specific investigation on a specific event which leans towards an enforcement action.

The FBI has provided support prior for the background checks and did so this time also. They used to in fact do the clearance background checks also or at least assisted OPM with the backlog.

Dims are trying to elevate this to an enforcement activity. And it appears the FBI won’t even nibble at the bait on that.
 
Last edited:
#2,223
#2,223
volinbham said:
I read a couple articles (and comments from Dem congressional members) and the message is clear - she is not to be questioned. She is to be heard.

One of the articles was about Collins request for cross-examination by the lawyers for each side. There was a full-on freak out that it was a tragedy that she would be subject to that (interestingly, they didn't weigh in on whether or not K. should be subject to interrogation by Ford's lawyers).
Click to expand...

I hold an especially dim view of the idea that accusation, in and of itself, should carry much weight. The idea of there being expectations beyond a mere accusation was a big enough deal it gave us the Confrontation Clause in the 6th Amendment. I try to stay fair minded but I'm rapidly losing interest in giving much benefit of the doubt to this accuser and her handlers.
 
#2,224
#2,224
hndog609 said:
I hold an especially dim view of the idea that accusation, in and of itself, should carry much weight. The idea of there being expectations beyond a mere accusation was a big enough deal it gave us the Confrontation Clause in the 6th Amendment. I try to stay fair minded but I'm rapidly losing interest in giving much benefit of the doubt to this accuser and her handlers.
Click to expand...

agreed - it's part of the continual erosion of rights. Free speech? Well not all the time if we think it's "hate" speech. Second amendment? 'nuf said. Third (I don't know what it is). Fourth? meta data, cellphone searches, etc. and on and on.

I believe she believes what she's saying. I have no way of knowing if her memories jibe with actual events and specific people. However the notion that all that is necessary to stamp guilty on someone is someone telling a story they believe in that cannot be questioned goes against the founding principles of liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Septic, hndog609 and 1 other person
#2,225
#2,225
happy-go_vol said:
So you're saying he's guilty?
Click to expand...

No? I’m saying that I support her testifying under oath. You know, so we can figure that part out. I’m damn sure not going to call her a liar like a lot of you are so eager do to. Just like I’m not going to call him a liar. This is a life time appointment. Forgive me for not wanting a possible creep to make decisions on my behalf. I’m pretty sure any of you with daughters should feel the same way. Well unless you truly only care about party affiliations.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top