Bisonfanatical wrote:93henfan wrote:
Cold feet about destroying a good man’s name with a phony allegation?
No suprise imo, all this drama is to postpone the vote until after the election. Most of us feel this is a political smokescreen to save specific senators from having to commit haricari (sp)
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
My gut tells me that same. She isn't going to testify. Feinstein is going to demand an FBI investigation, blah, blah, "because this can't be resolved by the Senate, blah, blah." She knows she is doomed, but she is going to make the victory as costly, politically, as possible.
I keep hearing that she "passed" a lie detector test -- but the Washington Post, curiously, did not actually say that. Here is what the Post reported:
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.
That's not like the result of any polygraph i've ever been involved with. No test I've ever seen involved reading someone a statement, and asking them if the statement was "accurate."
I'm no expert in this, for sure, but I've always understood that the person administering the test asks specific questions, one after another, developing the details of the account with each question, and monitors changes in the subject's physiological reactions through the measurement of changes in the subject's blood pressure, pulse, respiration, etc., as the account is developed, question after question.
Any time I've asked for a polygraph, that's what I have received.
For example, a person may well have attended a party with Persons A & B, and the test taker would, as the theory holds, observe no change in the subject's reaction as to the reaction recorded to baseline questions, as she answered the question. " And so on:
Were you drinking alcohol?" A: Yes (no change = truthful).
Q: Was Brett Kavanaugh there at the party?
A: Yes, (mild change, probably truthful, change in reaction excusable as subject understands the line of questioning/
Q: Did you speak to Brett Kavanaugh?
A: Yes (same reaction as to last question = probably truthful)
Q: Did you go to a separate room with Brett Kavanaugh?
A: Yes (no change from last question = probably truthful; any change from prior question, indication of deception.
Q: Did he grab you or try to force himself on you?
A: Yes. (no change from last question = probably truthful; any change from prior question, indication of deception.
Where is that kind of stuff?
CID90 -- you know about this stuff, I bet. Am I right?