US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[ikalugin]

Because Polygraph can be made to show whatever end result you want, which is why it is inadmissable.


Would you want to undergo procedure that could be made to say whatever the investigator wanted when you are the subject of a witch hunt?

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

One very big difference between Kavanaugh and Ford: Ford has actually taken a polygraph test on the charges and passed; Kavanaugh, as with the idea of an FBI investigation, has either said nothing about his willingness to take a polygraph or has given vague, non-answers; if he has nothing to hide, why evade?

<O>

Were you aware that the ex-FBI agent that gave the polygraph test only asked two questions? Fwd to the 5:45 mark

[u crank]

Asking the FBI to investigate an allegation of sexual assault 36 years after it happened without a time, date or location in one week shows just how dumb some politicians are.

And to what end? Even if the FBI or anyone else could completely clear Kavanaugh of any allegation not a single Democrat would change their vote. This has always been about Kavanaugh's conservative view of the law and the guy who nominated him.

[Sailor Steve]

What bothers me about this sort of thing (as with the Clarence Thomas allegations), is that there have been years, or in this case even decades, to make these charges, but they never turn up until the accused is involved in something big like this. It's a typical political witch-hunt, just like the Clarence Thomas hearings and just like the Bill Clinton impeachment. It's not about having better government. It's not about improving our country. It's about getting the other guy, and nothing more.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Were you aware that the ex-FBI agent that gave the polygraph test only asked two questions? Fwd to the 5:45 mark

...

Yes, but that was not unusual for a polygraph test, as was stated at about 4:30 into the clip you posted where the examiner so states and then expounds upon. We are all sort of thinking a polygraph test is like in the movies or on TV where a subject is hooked up and subjected to a long string of monotone questions and, in real life that is not the case in most circumstances; what you see on a TV or movie screen is mainly for dramatic effect and to create a sense of tension in a scene. Note that the examiner spent some time prior to the test interviewing Ford: if he had felt there was a need to affirm issues other than the veracity of Ford's statement(s), it would be presumed he would have asked additional questions...


I do, however, agree it would have been better to have had a more comprehensive set of questions; perhaps, now that the FBI is involved, Ford will take another test under better circumstances. I do also feel she may not get the chance to re-test because the corollary would be subjecting Kavanaugh to a similar test and I'm not sure he would be any more open to the idea than he has been and I also suspect the White House would much rather not have him take a test he might just fail...












<O>

[Mr Quatro]

I hope she doesn't think that she is going to get any special treatment from the FBI

[Dowly]

That's Kirsten Gillibrand not Dr. Ford...

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yes, but that was not unusual for a polygraph test

It's unusual based on the one I had to take.


They should have an outside firm like the Mossad do the investigating since the FBI's "political leaning" is questionable. "Oh, while digging we (accidentally) discovered some evidence of the Judge colluding with the Russians." We are shocked!

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting:

But Manger and McCarthy noted that prosecution was unlikely in Maryland because authorities would have to apply the law that existed at the time of the offense, not the law that exists now, Baltimore's FOX 45 News reported.

“For example, in 1982, assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a one-year statute of limitations,” they wrote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...complaint.html

[ikalugin]

So even if it did happen he could not be charged?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yes, but that was not unusual for a polygraph test, ... We are all sort of thinking a polygraph test is like in the movies or on TV where a subject is hooked up and subjected to a long string of monotone questions and, in real life that is not the case in most circumstances;

Well I am basing my opinions on the several polygraph examinations I have been subjected to as well as my researcher when I was applying to be a polygraph examination in the military. What happened here is very unusual.

Here is what a usual polygraph examination consists of

1. A team of examiners, preferably not ones that will be administering the exam will sit down and script out the questions. There will be baseline questions, prep questions, stress questions, and recovery questions. Then the order of these questions will be set and multiple sets of these questions will be selected with some carefully planned changes in the order. This to help mitigate any anticipatory reaction from the person being examined. Also how the examiner will explain and define the terms used in the exam will be determined.

Bottom line, the polygraph examiner does not just ask a few questions. It is all carefully planned and baseline questions are a necessity. My baseline and reactions to the prep questions will be different from other people's reaction. The polygraph examiner needs to understand how this specific person in this specific situation reacts to the baseline and prep questions.

2. There are audio, video, and polygraph recordings of the entire process. There are also some collections that I choose not to share in this venue. The examiner then goes through the script with the person being examined to determine if they have any concerns or uncertainties about the question. All this is recorded. Then the examination "officially" starts (It already was started) and the person is asked the set of questions in the order that was determined prior to the examine. The last thing you want is a polygraph examiner reacting to an answer and then asking spontaneous questions. If something comes up in a polygraph examination, another examination will be scheduled where the new questions will be planned as before.

The polygraph tech can not determine deception by a contemporaneous reading of the polygraph data. That is strictly from the movies. Some people will show increased readings in deception, others may have suppressed readings in deception. That's why the questions are asked multiple time with planned differences in the order.

3. When the examination is finished, the Polygraph tech then reviews the Audio, Video while reviewing the time stamped polygraph data. The Tech then writes up a preliminary report.

Then, a separate poly tech, who was not involved in the examination, then also reviews the Audio, Video, and the time stamped polygraph data. This independent review is to mitigate any biases that the tech who conducted the exam might has made. This secondary review is usually done without the knowledge of the initial report.

You can not properly review polygraph data without also reviewing the contemporaneous audio and video of the examination. That's what takes so long.

Both of these reports are then given to the supervisor who compares them and at their discretion asks the examiner and the reviewer in for an interview. The supervisor may also review the Audio, Video, and Polygraph data, but this is not usual. Significant discrepancies or raised concerns will be evaluated to see if they garner scheduling a second examination.

Then the original examiner writes up the report, with any dissenting information. This report is signed by the examiner, the reviewer, and the supervisor. That's the official report.

This is why it takes a while to get the results back from a polygraph. There is a lot of work involved in the planning, executing, and reviewing of a polygraph examination.

One guy asking two questions by himself is not an acceptable methodology of conducting a polygraph examination. It might work for parties, but not for something important

Polygraphs have their flaws. It is just a machine that records data. The weak links are always the humans including both the person being examined and the people doing the examination. A lot of work and planning is done to mitigate the human biases. The end result is something that works pretty good, most of the time, with most people. That's about as good as it gets with Polys.

The thing to keep in mind is that the polygraph is incapable of detecting lies or someone lying. It can only detect changes in data in which an inference of deception can be made.

This one guy, retired FBI or not, is doing polygraph system a disservice by whipping up a few questions, asking them multiple times and then selecting the dataset that favors his client and publishing that.

This is not how it is supposed to work. It only helps harm the already low confidence in the polygraph system.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

So even if it did happen he could not be charged?

seems so, plus it is a misdemeanour, not a felony, so most likely no jail time since he was a minor at the time even if he could be prosecuted and the charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Dowly

That's Kirsten Gillibrand not Dr. Ford...

Okay, I deleted it ... are you sure your from Finland?

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by vienna

whatever happened to the "Total Transparency" Trump promised when he said he'd "drain The Swamp"? Oh, I forgot; instead Trump decided to build his own "Huuuuger!!!" and worse swamp...<O>

THEY DON' T CALL IT 'FOGGY BOTTOM' FER NUTHIN'

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Because Polygraph can be made to show whatever end result you want, which is why it is inadmissable.


Would you want to undergo procedure that could be made to say whatever the investigator wanted when you are the subject of a witch hunt?

In the case of 'Sack vs. the U.S. Department of Defense' in 2016, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled that “law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses" & the tests "serve law enforcement purposes."

That judge was Brett Kavanaugh.