Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Choice 2: Yes, but only Maury is invited as a special guest to reveal the results of Kavanaugh's polygraph test.
Quote: 777Choice 1: Yes
Choice 2: Yes, but only Maury is invited a special guest to reveal the results of Kavanaugh's polygraph test.
I'd say no. He has a right against being forced to incriminate himself. I'd like to see him take one, but I don't think he should be forced.
Now that there is a week delay, I wonder if the GOP will have their special assistant conduct a proper interview with Dr Ford and publish the results.
Quote: billryanI'd say no. He has a right against being forced to incriminate himself. I'd like to see him take one, but I don't think he should be forced.
Now that there is a week delay, I wonder if the GOP will have their special assistant conduct a proper interview with Dr Ford and publish the results.
Her initial findings is that there would not be enough evidence to prosecute. That said, she did say the setting and limitations place by the rules of the senate were not an ideal way of conducting these interviews.
Quote: billryanI'd say no. He has a right against being forced to incriminate himself. I'd like to see him take one, but I don't think he should be forced.
Now that there is a week delay, I wonder if the GOP will have their special assistant conduct a proper interview with Dr Ford and publish the results.
Everyone has a right to take the 5th.
And, I'm not advocating polygraph as a normal routine for all appointments. However, due to the UNIQUE circumstance and the seriousness of the alleged sexual assault that requires a thorough FBI background (not a criminal) investigation, IMO, polygraph is warranted in this case.
https://www.google.com/search?q=polygraph+test+for+employment&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=polygraph+test+for+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j69i60j0l4.10305j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Anyone with knowledge on the polygraph test requirement please chime in ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Augustus_Larson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDMoGjKvNk
Quote: 777deleted
One can reliably beat the polygraph by clenching their sphincter muscles when answering the calibration questions, and again when telling the truth but not when lying during the normal test.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkHer initial findings is that there would not be enough evidence to prosecute. That said, she did say the setting and limitations place by the rules of the senate were not an ideal way of conducting these interviews.
A proper interview should be enough for her to determine if the Dr. Is being honest. Prosecution shouldn't be the needed standard.
I'd go with what the preponderance of evidence points to. I'm also curious if more women come out with such stories.
I think some of his answers, such as the Devils Triangle and boffing, were knowingly deceitful. I look forward to the investigation.
I actually thought he might be a decent Justice, much better than most of the named alternatives.
Quote: billryanA proper interview should be enough for her to determine if the Dr. Is being honest. Prosecution shouldn't be the needed standard.
So here is the crux of it. I DO believe that she is being honest. I watched her testimony, I think something happened to that lady. That said, there has to be some other proof other than she said. It just has to be. I honestly feel bad for both of them in this situation.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSo here is the crux of it. I DO believe that she is being honest. I watched her testimony, I think something happened to that lady. That said, there has to be some other proof other than she said. It just has to be. I honestly feel bad for both of them in this situation.
For a criminal conviction, yes. I tend to hold my Supreme Court Justices to higher standards. Much as I hold someone running for President to a.different standard than someone running a.family company.
A single accusation, Perhaps. Multiple ones plus the sheer contempt he showed in the hearings have changed my opinion. I don't think he deserves to be appointed and hope the investigation shows that.
Quote: billryanFor a criminal conviction, yes. I tend to hold my Supreme Court Justices to higher standards. Much as I hold someone running for President to a.different standard than someone running a.family company.
A single accusation, Perhaps. Multiple ones plus the sheer contempt he showed in the hearings have changed my opinion. I don't think he deserves to be appointed and hope the investigation shows that.
Assuming the investigation comes back with no new findings, which I lean toward this happening. I assume you still will be against the nomination, that is fine you have that right. However that still leaves him in a rather large position of power as a federal judge. So at this point, his nomination is torpedoed, do you support removing him from his current job based off allegations alone? I am sorry, I just can not support destroying a mans life based of uncorroborated accusations.
That keeps getting lost in the sensationalist aspect of this part.
His performance yesterday...looking at it again...how many times did he NOT answer the questions he was actually asked, and him a federal judge? Dozens.
Quote: beachbumbabsHis performance yesterday...looking at it again...how many times did he NOT answer the questions he was actually asked, and him a federal judge? Dozens.
He obtained her written statement, and interviewed her. Then he asked only two questions.
"Is any part of your statement false?"
"Did you make up any part of your statement?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkPerhaps. Then all the people involved in this can pat themselves on the back for furthering this concept that all it takes to ruin a person is accusations. Seems fair.
Be careful, you’re getting dangerously close to losing some respect around here...lol
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13I passed a polygraph test in about 1985 or so. I lied on every question except my name.
ZCore13
Definitely qualified for casino employment. 😀
Quote: MaxPenDefinitely qualified for casino employment. 😀
I'm sure many if not most people did something in their teens they would never do now. Although, I never did, nor never would try and take advantage of an intoxicated female.
ZCore13
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSo here is the crux of it. I DO believe that she is being honest. I watched her testimony, I think something happened to that lady. That said, there has to be some other proof other than she said. It just has to be. I honestly feel bad for both of them in this situation.
IDK. There is a fine line. There have been cases where multiple accusers were all lying. There have been cases where they were all delusional.
At the same time, there is a pretty decent chance they are truthful.
I'd tend to think that, with a supreme court nominee, its best to play it safe. No his career shouldn't be destroyed without more proof. But you can just pick someone else with similar politics for the court.
Also, it seems like he really lost his composure, which is bad.
Quote: Zcore13I'm sure many if not most people did something in their teens they would never do now. Although, I never did, nor never would try and take advantage of an intoxicated female.
ZCore13
I think you should really clarify that statement. I would lay odds that you have dealt cards or whatever to many intoxicated females as your employer supplied them with one drink after another in order to seperate them from their money. That's taking advantage in my book.
I was laughing my a** off when they asked about a page she wrote, if it was true. She could have simply said “yes”. Instead, she read it all, slowly, then began rattling off the definition of “bystander” and other crap.
I thought both were pretty similar as far as avoiding answering as well as actually answering questions.
Quote: Mission146Be careful, you’re getting dangerously close to losing some respect around here...lol
I dont want that to be the case, but I honestly dont care either. From my limited discussions in the political forum, most can guess I am a libertarian who leans a fair amount conservative. However, as a person who doesnt care for Trump, I have alienated the likes of AZ. As somebody who backs a traditional conservative I have alienated people like ams and BBB. Its all good. Like I said in another thread, it doesn't stop me from liking non political things they say and I would hope they would do me the same.
Quote: Mission146Be careful, you’re getting dangerously close to losing some respect around here...lol
For someone who said you didn’t care, you’ve mentioned it twice now.
Btw, It would make me unhappy if someone said that to me.
Quote: MaxPenI think you should really clarify that statement. I would lay odds that you have dealt cards or whatever to many intoxicated females as your employer supplied them with one drink after another in order to seperate them from their money. That's taking advantage in my book.
You should really get out once in a while a meet some real live dealers and casino employees. I can promise you I'm a better person than you and I'm guessing many of them are too. Or you can just keep living in your comic book world of superhero gamblers and evil casino workers.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13You should really get out once in a while a meet some real live dealers and casino employees. I can promise you I'm a better person than you and I'm guessing many of them are too. Or you can just keep living in your comic book world of superhero gamblers and evil casino workers.
ZCore13
Be careful not to break a wing.
Quote: RSI was laughing my a** off when they asked about a page she wrote, if it was true. She could have simply said “yes”. .
if a prosecutor gives you a chance to clarify a previous statement, it would be stupid not to review it and clarify it, if something appears unclear or ambiguous in it. Unless you like having your testimony be misunderstood or even used against you. Especially oral records where you didn't carefully write and review it in the first place. Why is that funny?
And when was the last time any guy saw one in the bathroom? Especially why would you see one in a bathroom without urinals?
I just hate it because I think it’s trying to be funny, but it’s just dumb. The bathroom thing is so stupid. A sex crime in a bathroom would be so much likelier to be an older man with a boy rather than a man “identifying” as a woman with girls in a woman’s restroom.
Quote: Zcore13...I can promise you I'm a better person than you....
Quote: rxwineif a prosecutor gives you a chance to clarify a previous statement, it would be stupid not to review it and clarify it, if something appears unclear or ambiguous in it. Unless you like having your testimony be misunderstood or even used against you. Especially oral records where you didn't carefully write and review it in the first place. Why is that funny?
Before I answer that question, let me pull up the definition of “funny” and spend a few minutes talking about it... smh.
No problem with clarification...but cmon, let’s get the show on the road and get on with the next questions.
Quote: KeyserI believe Kavanaugh. Furthermore I feel that whatever he did in high school, (with regards to his drinking) is trivial and irrelevant.
In Republican America:
If the blond on top has a penis thrust in her face or her vagina grabbed the assailant is a presidential or supreme court candidate
If the little girl in the bathroom has the same thing happen to her the assailant is eligible to be an evangelical priest
Quote: darkozQuote: KeyserI believe Kavanaugh. Furthermore I feel that whatever he did in high school, (with regards to his drinking) is trivial and irrelevant.
In Republican America:
If the blond on top has a penis thrust in her face or her vagina grabbed the assailant is a presidential or supreme court candidate
If the little girl in the bathroom has the same thing happen to her the assailant is eligible to be an evangelical priest
Difference between the blond young woman and the brunette little girl. The bathroom is more innocent since the person is just peeing but at a party it is more overtly sexual.
Quote: NathanQuote: darkozQuote: KeyserI believe Kavanaugh. Furthermore I feel that whatever he did in high school, (with regards to his drinking) is trivial and irrelevant.
In Republican America:
If the blond on top has a penis thrust in her face or her vagina grabbed the assailant is a presidential or supreme court candidate
If the little girl in the bathroom has the same thing happen to her the assailant is eligible to be an evangelical priest
Difference between the blond young woman and the brunette little girl. The bathroom is more innocent since the person is just peeing but at a party it is more overtly sexual.
I must have much different bathroom experiences than all you people.
Quote: 777I think for national security reason, some CIA, FBI, NSA positions require polygraph test. Also some sensitive positions in financial sectors also require polygraph test.
https://www.google.com/search?q=polygraph+test+for+employment&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=polygraph+test+for+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j69i60j0l4.10305j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Anyone with knowledge on the polygraph test requirement please chime in ...
Polygraphs are unreliable. There is a reason why they are not admissible in court. End of story
Quote: FinsRuleThat meme is so dumb. Why are people seeing penises during a party?
And when was the last time any guy saw one in the bathroom? Especially why would you see one in a bathroom without urinals?
I just hate it because I think it’s trying to be funny, but it’s just dumb. The bathroom thing is so stupid. A sex crime in a bathroom would be so much likelier to be an older man with a boy rather than a man “identifying” as a woman with girls in a woman’s restroom.
The hospital my wife works at installed a urinal in the corner with a small partition just like a mens room. They also installed tampon recepticales in the mens bathroom stalls.
Quote: troopscottThe hospital my wife works at installed a urinal in the corner with a small partition just like a mens room. They also installed tampon recepticales in the mens bathroom stalls.
That is so ridiculous.
Why do we need a weird 3 foot gap at the bottom so everyone can see your pants and bare ass legs?
Why is there a 3 inch peek-a-boo gap around the door?
I’ve heard that they don’t install stalls like that in Europe. It’s a normal freaking door that goes down to the floor and weird gap around the edges.
Quote: FinsRuleFor someone who said you didn’t care, you’ve mentioned it twice now.
Btw, It would make me unhappy if someone said that to me.
I’m honestly more amused by it than anything. That’s why I’ve alluded to it twice.
Quote: Keyser
They're both crimes, depending on intent.
And neither one is "tolerance."
What a stupid picture.
Regardless, let's be honest, here... Kavanaugh is a federal judge and Supreme Court nominee. His life is far from "ruined" if he doesn't get the SC or he loses his federal job. If that were to happen he could probably walk on to a teaching position at half the law schools in the country. He writes a couple of books, and boom, he's set for the rest of his life.
