Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[John V]

Smyth's statement that he has no knowledge of the party is not saying that the party didn't occur.  That doesn't follow.

Yes, it follows 100%. You can choose not to believe him if you want, but his statement directly contradicts Ford's claim.

[downbeatplumb]

https://local.theonion.com/applicant-who...1829225300

“What we look for in an applicant is evidence that he’s able to successfully intimidate his victim into silence, convince everyone that his victim is lying, or use his connections and family influence to get the whole episode swept under the rug. This is an elite school whose distinguished alums include President Bill Clinton, President George H.W. Bush, and Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, and we cannot in good conscience accept an applicant such as this young man who perpetrates sexual abuse and is unable to weasel his way out of any and all repercussions.” The Onion.

[Jehanne]

Smyth's statement that he has no knowledge of the party is not saying that the party didn't occur.  That doesn't follow.

Yes, it follows 100%. You can choose not to believe him if you want, but his statement directly contradicts Ford's claim.

If he's innocent, what does he have to fear from a FBI lie detector test?  After all, he authorized CIA torture??!

[John V]

If he's innocent, what does he have to fear from a FBI lie detector test? 

They generate a lot of false positives:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...ctors-work

Interestingly, the polygraph is quite good at identifying liars but does no better than chance at detecting honest people according to Lykken. In other words, there is a 50:50 chance that a polygraph test will say an honest person is lying (a 50 percent “false positive” rate).

[RoadRunner79]

If he's innocent, what does he have to fear from a FBI lie detector test? 

They generate a lot of false positives:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...ctors-work

Interestingly, the polygraph is quite good at identifying liars but does no better than chance at detecting honest people according to Lykken. In other words, there is a 50:50 chance that a polygraph test will say an honest person is lying (a 50 percent “false positive” rate).

They detect autonomic changes in the body which tend to indicate anxiety, and then those results need to be interpreted. And if they do a lie detector test (which if the do, the accuser should do one also) I have the feeling that those against kavenaugh will just move the goal posts again.

[Jehanne]

If he's innocent, what does he have to fear from a FBI lie detector test? 

They generate a lot of false positives:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...ctors-work

Interestingly, the polygraph is quite good at identifying liars but does no better than chance at detecting honest people according to Lykken. In other words, there is a 50:50 chance that a polygraph test will say an honest person is lying (a 50 percent “false positive” rate).

Of course, Dr. Ford passed one.

[John V]

Yep, it's not like Jehanne would accept it if he passed a lie detector.

[Jehanne]

Yep, it's not like Jehanne would accept it if he passed a lie detector.

Then, answer my question -- If he admitted to Ford's accusations, would you continue to support him as a SCOTUS nominee?

[John V]

Yep, it's not like Jehanne would accept it if he passed a lie detector.

Then, answer my question -- If he admitted to Ford's accusations, would you continue to support him as a SCOTUS nominee?

No.

[RoadRunner79]

Yep, it's not like Jehanne would accept it if he passed a lie detector.

I don’t think that a lie detector is a normal part of these types of proceedings. Hence why it is not being asked for. It’s not some big conspiracy. With that, if it’s so necessary that Kavenaugh take a lie detector test, the Dr Ford should also, under the control of the investigation.