Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Res Ipsa]

Are you familiar with the term 'Full Scope Poly', and if so, can you explain why him passing one would indicate innocence from having committed a felony in MD?

- Doc

Polygraph? Do go on.

[_Res Ipsa]

And while the radicals on this board are positively swooning because *gasp* people demand more than just an accusation made by a political Leftist aided by 'resistance' types you'll not nary a ____ peep is made aboug the lack of objectivity coming from the Left:

Democrats say Kavanaugh is clearly guilty.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Thursday: "I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story."

"Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review the claims," Gillibrand added. "Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not."

When Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.) was asked about Kavanaugh denying the accusation, the senator responded, "Well, I have heard, you know, many, many predators say and refute allegations against them."

Former spokesman for Bernie Sanders and CNN contributor, Symone Sanders, said she didn't even need to wait for more information: "For me there is no debate. I believe Professor Ford. Judge Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath."

And here are other select quotes from Democratic lawmakers:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said: "I believe Dr. Ford as I refer to her because she makes a very credible case. It is really difficult for someone to come forward in this way. Why should she destroy her life? Already there are efforts to cast aspersions on her credibility, to look into her family, all of that. This is really very much like what happened with Anita Hill where she was vilified, she was called names. This cannot happen to Dr. Ford.”

Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn.): "Let me just say right at the outset I believe. Dr Ford, I believe the survivor here, there’s every reason to believe her. She has come forward courageously and bravely knowing that she would face a nightmare of hostile and vicious scrutiny and challenge. And there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve Judge Kavanaugh after his evasive and seemingly misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); “I hope that she does [testify], because I’m afraid that what the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really want is they want her to go away. They don’t want the country to hear from her, and they certainly don’t want the country to hear from her live and on television. She’s absolutely right, the FBI should do a thorough vetting of these allegations. The Senate shouldn’t simply rely on hearing two conflicting accounts and decide, ‘Well, we’re OK with not knowing. We’re OK with the fact we might be putting a — someone who committed attempted rape on the Supreme Court of the United States.’ They should get to the bottom of this. And it wouldn’t take that long to do. This is the same crowd that waited a year to fill the last vacancy during the Obama administration on the Supreme Court, so why this rush? And I think they realize they have a very imperfect candidate, in fact they may have a candidate who has committed attempted rape.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): “Listen, it comes down to credibility to your point. It’s going to be about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to — to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage. And frankly, you know, I have personally prosecuted sexual assault cases, and my concern is— and she knows this — she is putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her. She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter, who serves on that court. And she has the courage to come forward? She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “Well I can tell you it really does have a ring of truth to it. The fact that she can refer to therapist notes so that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical of polygraphs, but those who believe them, she has passed a polygraph test."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): "I believe Professor Ford. I think she’s credible and I think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies and Judge Kavanaugh testifies, I think a majority of senators will find her credible."

Unbelievable.

- Doc

What's unbelievable is that the guy who has demonstrated zero objectivity is suddenly complaining about lack of objectivity.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Are you familiar with the term 'Full Scope Poly', and if so, can you explain why him passing one would indicate innocence from having committed a felony in MD?

- Doc

Polygraph tests are unreliable! "Can You Really Tell if Someone is Lying to You?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-2YQ4ikV1M

Which investigators again? I can help them develop a timeline:

1982 - Something may or may not have happened with another 2 (or 4) teenagers at a party, she cannot remember who threw the party, where the party was held, who she was with or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.

Investigators can simply look for and interview all of Kavanaugh's former high school classmates.

[_Res Ipsa]

Is it a bad idea for investigators to look for and interview all of Kavanaughs former high school classmates?

Which investigators again? I can help them develop a timeline:

1982 - Something may or may not have happened with another 2 (or 4) teenagers at a party, she cannot remember who threw the party, where the party was held, who she was with or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.
1983,
1984,
1985,
1986,
1987,
1988,
1989,
1990,
1991,
1992,
1993,
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997,
1998,
1999,
2000,
2001,
2002... She said nothing.
July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit... She said nothing.
2004,
2005... She said nothing.
May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate... She said nothing.
June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy... She said nothing.
2007,
2008,
2009,
2010,
2011... She said nothing.
2012... She remembered 'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to authorities.
2013,
2014,
2015,
2016,
2017 - becomes an anti-trump activist.
2018 - now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?

How's that timeline working for you?

- Doc

Gee, what could have happened in the last year or two that might have led a woman to come forward with a sexual assault that she'd kept silent about for years? And tell me, what qualifies her as an "anti-trump activist." Do tell.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Polygraph? Do go on.

Is it a good idea for investigators look for and interview all of Kavanaugh's former high school classmates?

[_DoubtingThomas]

I really hate the court of public opinion. We are not in a position to make a judgement.

[_honorentheos]

I have a difficult time with people crying politics over this. Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court, plain and simple. As to the claim of sexual assault, it deserves to be heard out.

[_Gunnar]

Given the compelling evidence that Brett Kavanaugh has committed perjury on multiple occasions,

Perjury charges aside, that is a terribly written article that apparently wasn't even proofread before being posted.

As for the charges themselves, I'm not sure any of them would stick. Just based on what the article says, the first charge is based on the assumption that "George Bush's wireless wiretapping system" is what is being referred to when Kavanaugh mentions the "random/constant surveillance of phone and email surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S." It could be different programs.

The second charge is based on the assumption that Kavanaugh's response "call me" is indicating that he was involved in the vetting process. We don't know why Kavanaugh wanted a call or what was discussed in the call (if there was one), so it's an assumption that he was involved.

The issue with the stolen Democrat talking points seems stickier, as discussed in this article. It's hard to deny Kavanaugh received stolen documents and knew it was confidential information.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rings.html

Thanks for that additional link, cinepro. It is one of quite a number reports that have come to that same conclusion. I am strongly inclined to agree that not only should Kavanaugh not become a Supreme Court Justice, he deserves to be impeached even from the position he now holds.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I really hate the court of public opinion. We are not in a position to make a judgement.

That's. Hil-a-ri-ous considering Kavanaugh has been convicted of rape by half the country based off a politically motivated accusation.

Our accuser now wants, based on the strategy developed by her openly anti-trump lawyer (who is part of the 'resistamce'), ridiculous demands to be met before she testifies. This is such a circus clown moment for Democrats, and as demonstrated by the brainwashed partisans on this thread, it's not the facts that matter, but the accusation. It's disgusting.

That said, DT, a full scope poly is a background investigation that includes a polygraph; the very thing you just said isn't reliable is the thing Ms. Ford took, adminstered by a former FBI agent coordinated through her lawyer. These kinds of background investigations often include investigative agents talking to not only past friends, but they'll then get references to other friends from those friends. I have no idea how in depth Kavanaugh's background investigation was, but I suspect it was fairly thorough based on my own experience.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

what qualifies her as an "anti-trump activist." Do tell.

Do you know anything about Debra Katz and the other Democrat operatives that are advising and assisting Ms. Ford with regard to her strategy? Can you tell me why Feinstein hasn't released the original Ford letter in her possession?

I have a hard time believing you're this retarded, so I'm just going to assume you're down with this nonsense hoping Kavanaugh will be sidelined. It ain't going to happen, but whatevs, counselor.

- Doc