Your vocabulary has gone to hell, not that it was ever very wide even at its best.
Keep shouung, though.
Cory Booker on now, an admitted groper.
I haven’t read the actual case. Have you read the actual case?
What I have read is the below, which actually quotes a relevant passage from the actual case which comprehensively backs up his assertion.
The bit of your post about believing some randomer is deliciously hilarious given you resorting to using Alex Jones conspiracy theories.
Yes, as a judge, Brett Kavanaugh has been all about polygraph tests in making hiring decisions. I guess he only approves of them when other people are getting hired. While he’s not written on the value of polygraph results per se, he’s approvingly cited the technology more than once.
Most notably 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.
This served as the preamble to finding that law enforcement reports detailing the shortcomings of polygraphs must be shielded from disclosure lest it undermine public confidence in polygraph accuracy.
Now here we are, with Brett Kavanaugh in the midst of the most serious job interview in American government. A lifetime job that actually carries tremendous import to “critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection.” Yet, now that the chips are turned against him, he’s suddenly skittish about polygraphs. In the coming hours and days, his cronies will lay bare every deficiency ever discovered in the technology. They’ll go so far as to claim anyone who might take a lie detector test is already proving that they’re some kind of kook. It’s all going to happen.
Brett Kavanaugh is prepared to stand for the proposition that “there’s a law for thee but not for me.” That should be a disqualifying characteristic in a Supreme Court justice.
Did you vote for Kamala Harris?
But if you believe him, and from what you write, it seems an open and shut case that you do, why would you think he should have stepped aside?
That would mean you’re willing to ditch somebody you believe is telling the truth.
Now, the only reason I can think of that anybody would come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is telling the truth is utterly blind political partisanship, but that’s a different matter.
If you genuinely believe him, it makes no sense to want him to step aside - you’d be saying that even though you think he is innocent, he should be shafted without an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. It shows up your total hypocrisy on the issue and your total lack of moral clarity.
I’ve no idea why you think the allegations you name would be made, except that you’re thinking about these things way too much and they’re seriously undermining your mental health.
Yes.
Where did I say I believe him?
It’s axiomatic from all you’ve written on the thread.
It would be literally unbelievable for somebody to write what you’ve written on this thread and not hold the view that he is telling the truth.
Has Kavanaugh spoken about polygraphs in this hearing? I haven’t heard anything from him yet actually.
I don’t know. But what he has said about them elsewhere would, in his own opinion, rule him out of being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
That’s the point.
You said I believe him. Please find the post where I said I believe him.
What I have said from the beginning is this is a deliberately and carefully planned last minute effort by Democrats to derail his appointment. All of the evidence so far would cause any rational intelligent person to reach the same conclusion. As you are neither rational or intelligent it is unsurprising your analysis stops at #IBelieveHer.
I believe her as well by the way. I believe she is 100% convinced that the incident she has described happened. Whether it actually happened as she described is an entirely different question.
this bint is very well trained, “i i i don’t understand” when asked a simple question that she doesn’t want to answer
she’s lying through her teeth
I don’t believe you on this. I think you’re lying to make yourself appear in a better light.
And your following two sentences contradict your first one. They’re couched in weasely words.
Lindsey Graham is a really nasty piece of work. This is the same guy who has prostrated himself at the feet of the arch-liar Donald Trump and believes that lying to the FBI is not a big deal.
the bottle of coke predominantly positioned, she’s get a few quid for that too
I heard a bit of this on the news. She seems very believable.
MURICA
I don’t think so. I think something like she is describing definitely happened. What’s in question is when did Kavanaugh as the attacker enter her memory, that night or sometime later. That could only be unearthed, if it could be unearthed, by the kind of forensic examination the prosecutor was talking about at the end. She didn’t name him in 2012 when she talked to her shrink. As far as I know his name didn’t come up until this year. It all sounds a little suspicious. All the memory gaps she has makes it actually impossible to investigate.
What the fuck was I thinking opening this thread?
7 Likes