You call that a polygraph?
Perhaps the Ford forces thought it would never come to this. Because they couldn’t possibly have thought that anyone would accept these results as evidence of anything except their own conniving and misleading duplicity:
Ah, that's why they didn't want to release it. There are two general questions, and the written statement contains a host of corrections (made when?). https://t.co/RS5y02BsKL
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
The letter looks like it was created by a dyslexic child, and the polygraph test looks like it was administered by some fifth-grader playing detective.
Did they never expect to have to produce this? Did they think their friends in the MSM would just cover for them and claim a polygraph was administered (not that polygraphs actually mean anything, but a lot of people actually set great store by them), and that would be enough to get Brett Kavanaugh rejected?
Well, maybe they were right, at least in the sense that maybe it will be enough, because facts and truth don’t seem to matter one whit to a great many people who will be voting on Kavanaugh in the Senate. If 2 + 2 must be said to equal 5, so be it, if the Party so demands.
And speaking of accusers, accuser number 3—the rape room girl—has this history.
From Politico (not known as a Trump-supporting, conservative site):
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”
“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
…Vinneccy, 63, is a registered Democrat, according to Miami-Dade County voting records.
And she has another interesting tidbit in her background:
New: A decade ago, Julie Swetnick made a sexual harassment complaint against her former employer, New York Life Insurance. Representing her was the firm run by Debra Katz, who now reps Christine Blasey Ford. She was ultimately paid a financial settlement. https://t.co/goobX4fivL pic.twitter.com/UJ1LFRRc6M
— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) September 26, 2018
This woman appears to be a serial con artist. I believe that some unknown percentage of sexual harassment suits in the business world are shakedowns by con artists, awarded by companies for whom it’s sometimes easier to give the accuser a small amount of money rather than fight the claim. I have no idea if the percentage is large or small, but I have a strong suspicion it is not infinitesimal.
“I believe that some unknown percentage of sexual harassment suits in the business world are shakedowns by con artists, awarded by companies for whom it’s sometimes easier to give the accuser a small amount of money rather than fight the claim. I have no idea if the percentage is large or small, but I have a strong suspicion it is not infinitesimal.”
Agreed, Neo.
In a just world, this could be researched, and some rough numbers determined, and those numbers could be discussed dispassionately.
Do we live in a just world?
I agree as well. In a sane world; indeed, in the America of even 25 years ago, such clumsy, paper thin, downright clownish accusations would have received no more than a passing mention, even against a Republican appointee. I did not believe Anita Hill (then or now) but she was far more credible than any of the Kavanaugh accusers.
But we now live in a postmodern “Twilight Zone” as Kavanaugh put it. Senator Hirono and others have verbalized the progressive position: evidence and objectivity do not matter. Kavanaugh is guilty because he has been accused (and because he is a conservative white male). QED.
Have the hearing tomorrow and then TAKE THE VOTE.
I saw the letter on some blog site that was setting up the polygraph that shows the test was administered a week after she sent the letter to Feinstein. And that the test was administered in Maryland while she was on vacation. If she doesn’t fly just how did she get to MD and back again? Drive? But she gave a 2 day window for the test in MD. Now, of course what I saw could also be Fake News. Anyone else see the letter?
EDIT: Guess is should have said “purported letter”
Evidence means nothing to zealots.
620,000 working lawyers in America and one of them is representing one of these women and has a history with the other. Inneresting.
Commenter at Legal Insurrection’s post:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-accuser-fords-polygraph-results-released-raising-more-questions/#comment-884364
OldProf2 | September 26, 2018 at 7:39 pm
Having been involved in forensic science for nearly 50 years, I can state categorically that polygraph exams are worse than unreliable. They give a pseudoscientific aura to totally unscientific conclusions. All of the scientific analyses of polygraphy have shown it to be little more reliable than flipping a coin. The long-term spy Aldrich Hazen Ames said that he could not have succeeded as a spy for so long if his superiors had not trusted the many polygraph tests he “passed” (whatever that means, since it’s undefined).
Here is the last word on polygraph tests, for anyone who is interested. It’s an in-depth study by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. It concludes that the widespread use of the polygraph in government, the military, and law enforcement gives misleading information to those using it, and it often accuses innocent people and gives cover to the actual spies.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/1
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-accuser-fords-polygraph-results-released-raising-more-questions/#comment-884379
amwick | September 26, 2018 at 8:11 pm
I checked/verified this on maps.. it was an airport hotel.
AN AIRPORT HOTEL.. Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport.
Ok, I read that on twitter too, but the address checks out.
I was intrigued by Avenatti’s responses to some of the new information about his client. It’s an Onion-esque parody of the stances of the Democrats in the Senate.
Are we sure Avenatti isn’t a troll being paid by Trump supporters?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
“Reached late Wednesday, Avenatti said he knew nothing of a restraining order and called the line of inquiry irrelevant.
“Complete nonsense. No truth to this at all. Her ex-boyfriend fraudulently used her resume to apply for and obtain jobs and was caught by her,” said Avenatti. “Why are you all attacking a sexual assault victim? Would that be appropriate in a court of law?”
…
Avenatti said called the reporting “outrageous” and accused the press of “digging into the past” of a woman who stepped forward and is willing to testify under oath.
“I am disgusted by the fact that the press is attacking a sexual assault victim,” Avenatti said.
When asked if the allegation of a restraining order were true, Avenatti said: “I don’t know one way or another,” adding he would research it further.
Avenatti previously said he had vetted the client and in a sworn statement, she said she still held government clearances.”
Not very good vetting if they didn’t find this, as it took someone less than a day to find it. And who signed off on a clearance for a woman complicit in a rape and under-age drinking ring?
“A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy”
Somebody is going to leak flight manifests very soon, according to my Magic 8 Ball.
Back in 1989, I became a manager in a mid-size manufacturing facility in Wisconsin. The HR manager was explaining the sexual harassment policies of the company to me at an orientation. He told me that as a manager, I needed to proceed with caution when interviewing accusers and accusees for documentation. He emphasized never to jump to conclusions about who was telling the truth because of cases they had already dealt with in the past. The quickest way for a female employee to “get back” at a male supervisor was to make a sexual harassment claim. This wasn’t said out of speculation but from actual cases that had been brought forward and subsequently fell apart. He emphasized that in a small town like the one we were in, this could have a particularly devastating effect on a man’s life. In one case a man was proved to be innocent but his reputation still remained tainted. I totally got that. Not once did I or anyone else ever think that just because a woman made an accusation she had to be telling the truth. Ah, the good old days…
Regarding polygraph reliability – when I was in college I had a chance to play around with a lot of psychobiology tools. I got to where I could spoof the skin galvanometer – make it go up and down at will. I would be reluctant to regard any such device as reliable.
The man who administered the polygraph was on FoX News last night. He said it was not normal for a polygraph to be administered to the accuser — normally it would be given to the accused. He also said it was normal for a polygraph to be this short (two questions) — that a longer test ran the risk of influencing the person taking the test.
When I was first employed by the USG and had travelled to Washington, I was the roommate for a while with someone — a high school buddy — who had recently been employed by the CIA. His was in a particularly sensitive position, with access to lots of sensitive records, and he went through a stringent pre-employment process, including a polygraph.
He described that “test”. The person administering the polygraph spent time at the outset establishing a baseline for the physiological inputs his machine was measuring, like respiration rate, pulse, sweating, etc. After that he was asked the “money” questions: did he, or had he ever belonged to the Communist Party, did he have any contacts with Communist agents, etc. Interestingly, the one question the operator kept circling back to was “is your name Allen?” Apparently, he kept indicating a “lie” to that question. He passed everything else with flying colors, and was eventually hired, but he couldn’t pass the question about his name!
The point is, though, that a two-question polygraph sounds bogus to me.
F, you are correct. A two question polygraph test is bogus. Especially two questions essentially asking if her statement is correct. Nothing about the party, nothing about where and when, and nothing about Kavanaugh.
I saw the former FBI examiner but not on Fox. He’s a sleazeball. He simply assumed she is the “victim” and that you must “always believe” the victim. So he assumed she was telling the truth. And he obviously limited the test to only two softball questions to produce the results his employers, the attorneys representing Ford, wanted him to produce.
It’s typical for a polygraph test to last up to 90 minutes. Not that I believe they’re effective. Typically the only people who fail are those who make too many admissions.
Actually I predicted this result. That any polygraph test administered by a friendly examiner being paid by her attorneys would be guaranteed to produce the “right” result. Another tidbit most people don’t know about polygraphs is that the examiner can manipulate the results. The way they interpret the results is entirely subjective. Which is why polygraphs can’t be used in most pre-employment screening in the private sector. But for some jobs, as with a security company, they can be used. And the examiners know that they’re hired to find liars, so they’ll adjust their criteria to produce liars. It’s job security.
In the late ’90s the failure rate for prospective agents applying to the FBI was 20%. After 9/11 the failure rate jumped to 50%. Why? Because so many people wanted to join the FBI the top guys figured they could afford to lose more applicants so they had their examiners adjust their criteria to screen more out.
As far as I’m concerned polygraphs are worse than palm readers or a fortune tellers’s crystal ball. They’re no more effective at detecting who is telling the truth and who isn’t, but for some strange reason people who know that palm reading and crystal balls are complete BS but they believe in the voodoo of the polygraph thinking that there’s some science involved (there isn’t). And I don’t know why as the hall of shame of traitors who spied while employed at intelligence agencies are full of spies like Aldrich Ames who passed multiple polygraph tests after they began spying for the Soviets, Cubans, etc.