|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is there any quote of him discrediting the polygraph or refusing to take one himself, or anything like that?
Otherwise, I don't see the hypocrisy indicated in the article.
Especially the part where it's, "in the coming hours and days..."
Did any of that happen?
This is bog-standard. In general, people don't make laws to regulate their own behavior(s).
Other than Congress voting to increase their own pay, people don't tend to make laws that have any expected effect on themselves.
I wish we lived in that world, but we don't.
This is verbatim what his ruling said
As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.”
The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.
Second, the reports contain information about techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations. As the Government points out, the reports detail whether a particular agency’s polygraph procedures and techniques are effective. The reports identify strengths and weaknesses of particular polygraph programs. In describing the effectiveness of polygraph techniques and procedures, the reports necessarily would disclose information about the underlying techniques and procedures themselves, including when the agencies are likely to employ them.
So, he accepted and ruled that the Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes, yet now he believes these are unreliable. Didn't he know these were unreliable back when he was doing that ruling? It's either hypocrisy, ineptitude, or a combination of both.
This is what he now says, while on the hotseat when asked if he had taken a polygraph
“No, I’ll do whatever the committee wants. Of course, those are not admissible in federal court,” he said, knowing that the Republican-controlled committee was unlikely to instruct him to take a polygraph. “They’re not admissible in federal court because they are not reliable, as you know.”
He also got on the moral high ground when they "asked about his sexual life".
When we remember, in the Ken Starr/Arkansas/Bill Clinton investigation on some real estate deals he attacked Billy's sex life savagely.
Cigar's, anyone?
with a focus on highly specific and explicit interrogations — "piece by painful piece" — including multiple queries clarifying precisely where the ejaculate landed. "The idea of going easy on him is ... abhorrent to me," Kavanaugh wrote.
The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "choir boy". Plus, he did it. The devil's (triangle) is in the details
|
Reply With Quote
