Random Politics & Religion #34

So...lie detector tests are credible now?

Remember when Stormy Daniels took one and they "weren't credible"?

United States

Brochure of the Defense Security Service (DSS) about polygraph testing

Demonstrating the administration of the polygraph, the polygrapher making notes on the readouts. 1970s
File:NSApolygraphvideo.webm
"The Truth About the Polygraph" (National Security Agency (NSA)-produced video on the polygraph process)
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993),[42] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue". While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test.[citation needed] In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[43] the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the states of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[44] As of 2013, about 70,000 job applicants are polygraphed by the federal government on an annual basis.[45] In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

In 2010 the NSA produced a video explaining its polygraph process.[46] The video, ten minutes long, is titled "The Truth About the Polygraph" and was posted to the website of the Defense Security Service. Jeff Stein of The Washington Post said that the video portrays "various applicants, or actors playing them – it’s not clear – describing everything bad they had heard about the test, the implication being that none of it is true".[47] AntiPolygraph.org argues that the NSA-produced video omits some information about the polygraph process; it produced a video responding to the NSA video.[46] George Maschke, the founder of the website, accused the NSA polygraph video of being "Orwellian".[47]

Canada
In Canada, the 1987 decision of R v Béland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court. This decision did not, however, affect the use of the polygraph in criminal investigations.[citation needed] The polygraph is regularly used as a forensic tool in the investigation of criminal acts and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations.[40]

In the province of Ontario, the use of polygraphs is not permitted by an employer. A police force does have the authorization to use a polygraph in the course of the investigation of an offence.[41]

I'll take ya on that bet. Lets say, you win, I give you a +, I win, you give me a +?

We will also see how long it takes Trump and the alt-right to attack the 3rd accuser. I'm betting less than an hour.

[President Donald Trump also weighed in on the new allegations, stating Avenatti is a "third rate lawyer" who is "good at making false accusations." The president referred to Avenatti as "a total low-life."

Ok, so far, the alert from the local DC Fox News affiliate mentioned the President attacking the Lawyer, but not the Accuser.


At bottom of http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/3rd-woman-accuses-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-misconduct

So bet still on. =)

Its been 34 minutes Skull, should we call in a third party to judge?

I was talking about nausi lol. But yes, Trump only attacked the lawyer so far. Which of course, will only help said lawyer.

The actual tweet.

I was talking about nausi lol.

I don't Tweet. I leave that to liberals and canadians and those wanting to move there since they can't handle being FREE.

Well I don't think anyone can say Nausi is a speaker for the Alt-Right....so no, I say bet still on. =)

So...lie detector tests are credible now?

Remember when Stormy Daniels took one and they "weren't credible"?

https://www.scribd.com/document/389502624/Declarations-in-Support-of-Dr-Ford#from_embed

I know some of you will dismiss the first affidavit because it’s Fords husband. However the other 3 aren’t family and all 4 corroborate that she’s been talking about the attempted assault before Kavanuagh was nominated to be on SCOTUS.

Is it a conspiracy or smear campaign?

Where there’s smoke is there fire?

Where there’s smoke is there fire?

Kavanaugh was on romeys short list for nominations. No doubt libs prep their smears YEARS in advance.

This guy has been through six FBI background checks. The FBI has investigated him 6 times.

How did he manage to fool the FBI and cover up your rape trains all these years?

I see nausi is losing it again.

/popcorn

And the Democratic Senator held back the information even during the hearings, which she was part of.

IN MY OPINION, The Senate Judiciary Leader, should have held his ground, said Monday or Bust, due to Democrats purposely fowling the process up.

I predict, at the full senate vote, Kava-whats it, will miss the vote by 2-3 needed.

Page needs more Fone