This is why they're not admissible in any court in the land, why anyone with two brain cells regards them as the equivalent of phrenology, and why only people with nothing else to do pimp them: if they had anything actually factual and reliable, they'd use that.
But when your witness has a 35-year memory lapse, only brings the story up when it's politically expedient, and the details over time are inconsistent, and completely at odds with every known reality that would support or undermine the story, it's all they've got.
Sticking a flower into a pile of manure doesn't make it smell any better.
Amazing, isn't it? Call something a "lie detector," and a lot of people will think that means it detects lies. The magic of choosing the right words!
ReplyDeleteThe democrats are testing their strategy right now. They know that Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed regardless of what happens, but they're testing to see how far they can push this tactic of bringing some elderly bimbo back from the dead to claim that someone once did something that was invited thirty years ago, but is now found to be distasteful to some people. This is probably the most dubious and BS accusation of them all that we've seen so far. If this one works to discredit Kavanaugh even a little or delay his confirmation even a little, then they know its effective to an extent, rather than damning to their cause.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shit test. And so far, it's passing.
Lie detector test + Administered by ex-FBI agent = Total BS
ReplyDeleteThe latest I am hearing is that this deranged, far left, pussy hat wearing, SJW whack-job is a serial accuser. Apparently, she sent a letter last year alleging a similar 'assault' claim against judge Neil Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Feinswine and Company are scrambling as we speak to prevent that letter from seeing the light of day.
ReplyDeleteIt'll come to light: the internet is forever.
ReplyDeleteAnd just in time for mid-terms.
F. Lee Bailey was one who argued that lie detectors were highly unreliable, and should NOT be use in courts. It has to do with the facts:
ReplyDelete- They can be beat - look up "beating a lie detector" on a web search - you get close to 1/2 million results
- Psychopaths and mentally unstable people will LOOK like they are telling the truth. In the first case, truth is what they WANT it to be, in the second, that person may honestly believe that their story is the truth.
- There is a wide range of results that are questionable - neither decisively truthful or clearly lying. How they are interpreted depends on the operator.
- And, last, questions can be worded so that they can produce a 'truthful' response, but be quite misleading.