
That is reasonable. They won't provide something that a bunch of R experts will try to poke holes in unless they agree to let their expert testify. That is just logical. |
At that point he’d been nominated so of COURSE his name was obvious. |
That’s blatant distortion. They were explaining why they have the report from the guy but not all of the components used in the analysis. That is totally and completely usual. You obviously have an agenda. |
That's a perfectly reasonable "withholding" -- the polygraph is a form of science and requires an expertise that none others in that room can likely claim. |
She did not talk about Kavanaugh Until recently when his name was on the shortlist and she felt it was important to speak up but was not sure how to go about it |
Yes. Details are what are lacking. How on God’s green earth can Kavanaugh PROVE that he didn’t do this if there is no date, no place and no other details? All the people there deny this occurred. |
My DH just pointed out that some of Mitchell’s weak attempted points are going to be digested into news bytes and made to seem like they are somehow significant.. Ex. PP’s screenshot of Fox “News” using a hearing picture of a smiling Dr. Ford. |
Certainly Strassel has an agenda and she is incredibly intellectually dishonest and mischaracterizes nearly everything she "reports" on. |
Polygraphs are bullshit. I don’t care about any of this. |
politics. You know, like how the republican senators on this committee are not asking for the FBI to investigate because they will lose this nominee and they have bigger political issues they are pushing for his butt to get on the bench for. |
she accused him before he was nominated to the supreme court! wow
So the people thinking this is some democrat conspiracy.. did we have one woman lined up with an accusation for everyone on the short list? idiots |
Exactly. You need the person conducting the test to give much needed context |
Chris coons, pay attention. Asked and answered. Move on. |
Call the FBI! Oh wait, kavanaugh is too chicken to have them look in to this now. |
They could ask Mark Judge, in person. Just a thought. |