Ed. For those who believe it a big deal that Blasey Ford “passed a lie detector test,” read this piece by Steven Hayward. For it’s apparent that she did NO SUCH THING.

Leftists can’t say the sun is shining without the use of weasel words and fraudulent claims!!


The following article appeared in Powerline on September 20th

By Steven Hayward

I wish everyone, including those who support Judge Kavanaugh, would stop using the term “lie detector.” There is no such machine. The “polygraph,” as it is properly called, simply measures changes in your autonomic physiology while you answer questions. And while there is some statistical correlation and probabilities associated with certain pattern changes, its overall imprecision and known false positives are why polygraph exams have never been admissible in court. I wonder why anyone actually uses them at all for anything more important that a party trick. CIA traitor Aldrich Ames passed multiple polygraph exams, as did Roy Moore in Alabama when his history became a campaign issue. (Surprisingly, liberals now championing that Dr. Ford “passed a ‘lie detector’ test” didn’t seem to accept the result in Roy Moore’s case.)

lie detector
A Blasey Ford practice session?

But as to Dr. Ford’s polygraph, did she in fact “pass” it? Buried way down in the original Washington Post story is the only reference to the matter, worded this way:

On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

Let the end of that sentence sink in slowly, for the wording is strange indeed. This sounds like the polygraph measured a tautology. “Is this your statement?” “Yes.” “Congratulations: You passed!” Perhaps the Post reporter, Emma Brown, is merely sloppy, but note that the story doesn’t literally claim that Ford “passed” a polygraph.

A Power Line reader with a background in sex crimes prosecution flagged this detail:

As a sex crimes/homicide prosecutor for many years, to my ears, this wording was purposefully written to mislead. Look at what it does not say. The reporter does not say that the polygraph found the accuser credible when she said that Kavanaugh committed this act. And from my experience that would be because the accuser was either not asked that question, the result of her response was inconclusive, or that she was found deceptive to that question.

This is one reason why it would be a good thing for the Judiciary Committee staff to see the entire polygraph results. Why do I expect this won’t happen? Does the Post actually have the entire polygraph recording, or does the term “results” in the story just mean the conclusion passed along by Dr. Ford’s lawyers? The Post should clarify, and post online the entire document from the polygraph examiner if they have it.


(Article continues HERE)