In case no one else asks you, why?
maybe they still use polygraphs as sort of a threat to get people to confess to things? just a guess from me , I don’t have direct knowledge.
Because they are a good psychological tool for interrogation. Many people confess things to polygraphers.
do I get a gold star for my guess above? 
As was shown, Feinstein was respecting the wishes of the victim in holding out till the last minute before revealing these allegations, which are no long anonymous, in the hope that they would not be needed in order to demonstrate to senate Republicans that this was a poor choice, what with the perjury, his views on the expansiveness of executive authority and privileged, and his dedication to overturning Roe vs Wade. It ended up creating a bit of a mess, and she did fuck it up a bit, but you have no option but to keep going back to the same well of blaming her every time you need a “whataboutism”, that’s gonna get old quickly for you.
You can single out one single democrat who handled this complex situation poorly. I don’t need to single out a single republican, they are all handling it very poorly.
The SJ Merc has more details than I’ve seen elsewhere, but it looks like they are just re-reporting the Washington Post story.
One problem with her story is that, according to that article, she admits that she was drinking at the party. She claims she had only 1 beer, but it’s hard to believe she remembers exactly how many beers she had at a party 35 years ago.
Is there any indication that she’s wiling to testify in front of the committee?
No idea, but is there any indication that the committee would even allow that? That they’re (the majority, anyway) at all interested in pursuing credible allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh?
Does this change your opinion, at all, about how the Senate should proceed?
Worth saying for the record that if Kavanaugh is withdrawn the GOP will very likely install someone worse. For me, at least, this is not about shaping SCOTUS opinions. Common decency says this should be investigated.
If I’m understanding you: a polygraph could be better than chance at detecting a lie without being anywhere near an ironclad indicator of truth. For example, my understanding is that polygraph tests are only about as good as chance at determining that a truth-teller is in fact telling the truth. But they have a very low rate of false negatives – they’re quite good at filtering out liars even if they take some of the truth-tellers alongside. This could make them reasonable for use as an employment screen by an organization that needs to be careful and conservative (e.g. the FBI) but not very useful in a court of law.
I think it’s pretty much a lock that the woman who was high on Trump’s list will be picked next if there is a #2 pick , she’s at Notre Dame law school.
See post #922.
All out of those, got one for your dog. Does your Bowser accept cookies?
ok but I have 2 dogs
And the smearing begins.
What does it matter exactly if she had a beer? Does having a beer mean that you have consented to sexual assault? Or is your contention that having a beer means that she was unable to tell that she was being sexually assaulted?
If she had said “I had exactly 7 beers” that is an exact number that may be remembered. But 1, that is a simple enough number to not forget, not really anything “exact” that needs to be memorized.
Also: people tend to remember details about traumatic experiences. Remembering a detail is not somehow damaging to credibility.
Thanks, don’t know how I missed that.
According to the TV, Lindsey Graham has announced that he’s willing to hear more information from the accuser Ford as long as it’s delivered promptly. Not sure if that means testimony, or written testimony, or something else, but it’s a teeny tiny bit promising that at least some Republican Senators aren’t going to totally ignore this.
It’s not a smear. It’s a problem with her story.
The problem is how accurate her memory is. Memories become less accurate with time, and alcohol can also impair memory. Both would affect her ability to remember details about the event. For example, it could be that she was assaulted, but the assailant wasn’t Kavanaugh.
I don’t think she’s lying. I think she was assaulted. But I don’t think she remembers how many beers she had earlier that evening. That adds some doubt about her ability to remember details. As does the 30-odd years in the past when the assault occurred. But let her tell her story to the committee and we’ll see how it goes. I’m just going by the meager details we have from the paper today. I would expect a lot more information to come from her testimony.
Imagine you were sexually assaulted at a party. And you are a woman. In America.
You don’t think you would spend some time thinking about how much you had to drink? C’mon dude.