Interesting FB post concerning Kavanaugh and lie detectors

[kpete]

The author — whose identity I do not know — is a pretty amusing writer. If you don’t want to read all of it (but you should), skip down to the bottom where I bolded the author’s conclusions.




“I went on my own research journey about Brett Kavanaugh, and discovered something that hasn’t been reported anywhere else. AND I AM HERE TO SERVE SOME PIPING HOT TEA ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH. (For those who don’t read any news at all: Kavanaugh is Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, and a woman named Christine Blasey recently accused him of sexually assaulting her.)

Reader: “WHERE IS MY TEA ALEX YOU PROMISED TEA GIVE ME THE TEA!”

I’m getting to the tea!

But first a little background.

Reader: “OMFG.”

Christine Blasey, aware that her credibility would be viciously attacked by zillions of terrible people, decided to head off a few doubters by taking a polygraph. She passed.

Lots of people debate the legitimacy of polygraphs. We’ve all seen child molesters pass them on Dr. Phil!

But let’s put aside your opinion of polygraphs, or my opinion of polygraphs, or the talking heads’ opinion of polygraphs. No, kids, in the words of Brett Kavanaugh, who used the phrase “Buckle up” in a court opinion he wrote that I am about to have a lot of fun writing about, LET’S DISCUSS WHAT BRETT KAVANAUGH THINKS ABOUT POLYGRAPHS!

Reader: “WTF?”

Yes.

Reader: “BRETT KAVANAUGH PUBLICLY WROTE ABOUT POLYGRAPHS?”

Yes!

You see, when I am not being a circus performer, or playing Cities Skylines, I have this thing I do to pay rent, which is being an attorney. Specifically a litigator. I spend a lot of time reading cases written by judges. Kavanaugh is a judge. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion about polygraphs.

Reader: “I would think the media would have noticed this.”

I thought I was the first to invent an idea for microtransactions only to discover Google patented it right before I tried and I was unbelievably pissed about that. So if you think I’m not going to take credit for being the first person to think about searching for polygraph opinions written by Brett Kavanaugh, well, you try to find it somewhere else. I got the scoop and you’re reading it here first!

Reader: “So what does Brett Kavanaugh think about polygraphs?”

Brett Kavanaugh has a soft spot in an otherwise stone heart for polygraphs. For a heart that hasn’t pumped blood in years, it’s a soft spot that might be gangrene, but which also led Brett to opine that government reports about polygraphs qualify for what’s called a FOIA Exemption 7(E).

Reader: “This sounds complicated.”

My job is explaining the law to both lay people and judges. Judges are much harder for some reason.

Anyway, a 7(E) exemption is what allows the government to avoid sharing documents with the public if it would risk causing “circumvention of the law”. As in, we can’t be releasing important law enforcement things if it will make criminals’ lives easier. Information is dangerous in the wrong hands!

A college student, Kathryn Sack, was researching polygraphs, and trying to get the government to release documents it had about polygraphs. This was “for her dissertation on polygraph bias”. Sack v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir., 2016) at 688.

Reader: “I think I know what’s coming.”

I bet you do!

There might not be many court opinions written by Brett Kavanaugh about the sanctity of marriage, or the sanctity of the unborn, which is why everyone is reading tea leaves about it, but there just so happens to be a court opinion by Brett Kavanaugh about the sanctity of the polygraph. As socialist atheist liberals, we can’t believe in god, but with irony this rich, we just might have to start!

Instrumental in his decision as a judge, Kavanaugh calls the polygraph “an important law enforcement tool”. Id at 694. Kavanaugh noted that “The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” Id. Kavanaugh agreed with the Government’s concern that if information were released about how polygraphs work, it “could enable criminal suspects, employees with ill intentions, and others to subvert polygraph examinations.” Id at 694 and 695.

Reader: “OK, but we all know that polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. Doesn’t that mean the court doesn’t believe in the veracity of polygraphs, especially for people accused of crimes?”

Not according to Brett Kavanaugh! “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants.” Id at 694, quotations omitted. If Facebook allowed bolding, I would bold that "criminal defendants" bit.

Reader Who Also Happens To Be a Lawyer: “But was this decision deferential or de novo?”

“[R]egardless of whether our review here is deferential or de novo, we would reach the same result because we agree with the District Court’s segregability determination.” Id at 695.

Non-Lawyer Reader: “What is de novo?”

The gist is basically that Brett Kavanaugh isn’t just taking the lower court’s word for it that polygraphs are a legit tool that needs to be protected. It means Brett Kavanaugh himself believes that.

This case is from 2016.

But wait, there’s more!

Kavanaugh wrote the decision in Jackson v. Mabus, 808 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir., 2015) where he’s like, super casual about discussing a polygraph that was used as evidence in front of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, which isn’t as exciting as the Sack case, but at least puts to bed the notion that judges don’t discuss polygraphs as evidence, or at least, not as far as Brett Kavanaugh is concerned.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

Reader: “Oh god. How many of these are there going to be?”

MY CLIENTS HIRE ME BECAUSE I AM NOTHING IF NOT THOROUGH.

Besides, wouldn’t you want to know the tea about Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion about sex offenders who preyed on 14 year olds being required to take polygraphs and whether that’s an unreasonable attack on liberty?

Reader: “OMFG.”

The restrictions placed on a convicted sex offender, Tom Malenya, in his supervised release, included a number of things, such as polygraph testing. The court tossed the provision restricting his ability to use a computer (reasoning it would make it impossible for him to get a job). Brett Kavanaugh dissented and said all of the restrictions were fine, (thus including the polygraph) except for the one that involved a medical examination of Malenya’s penis. United States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir., 2013). Yes, in a world of forced ultrasounds, Brett Kavanaugh is here to defend pedophile penis.

And that’s it. That’s it for the tea. I have only searched and read Brett Kavanaugh’s literal handful of cases that mention polygraphs, and I have reached several conclusions:

1. Brett Kavanaugh thinks polygraphs are important tools for measuring the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants.

2. “Polygraphs are not admissible in court” is an utterly, utterly ludicrous argument when you’re discussing Brett Kavanaugh, who thinks polygraphs are not only useful but critical in everything from high level government jobs to reasonable safeguards against sex crimes.

3. Brett Kavanaugh is a douchebag. And also a poor writer who thinks he’s a good writer, and I really hate those people.

4. When deciding whether people should be given high level government positions, it’s reasonable and probably a good idea to subject those people to polygraphs, at least according to Brett Kavanaugh.

5. If I end up taking a case to the US Supreme Court and Kavanaugh is confirmed, I had better hope his memory of who wrote articles dragging him is as poor as his memory of attacking a fifteen year old girl. The depressing thing is that I'm pretty sure he's far more likely to remember the first than the second.

He could clear his name with a polygraph! For a believer, one wonders why he hasn't offered to take one himself



From:
#polygraphforbrett”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/24/1798331/-the-Kavanaugh-accuser-count-reaches-four-Criminal-charges-filed-in-Maryland#comment_71441913

[tblue37]

1. K&R and thanks! He won't take one because he believes their results are accurate, and he

absolutely doesn't want the truth to be exposed.

[bobbieinok]

2. Thanks for posting. Is someone getting this article to dems on committee?

[kpete]

3. I will send it to

Senator Feinstein
thanks for the suggestion

[bobbieinok]

8. Would you be able to send it to all dems on committee, esp Harris, Booker, Hawaiian sen?

My reason--sent to each senator, their staffs would see it at once. The faster and the wider this info on Kav's positive view of polygraphs gets out the better.

Also I sometimes think dems don't always talk to each other as quickly or as often as maybe they should.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. 2nd that

They're all extremely busy right now. Sending it to multiple offices gives it a better chance of being seen and evaluated.

It's probably a firehose of information coming in. Not fair to have it all aimed at one Senator.

[kpete]

11. done

[bobbieinok]

12. Thank you very much for doing this!

[sakabatou]

4. I bet making Brett take a poly would be like taking certain cats to the vet

[NCjack]

9. Maybe worse. Like while naked, trying to stuff the anus of a wild cat

with cooked spaghetti.

[BobTheSubgenius]

13. Don't be disparaging my hobby!

BTW....they don't like raw spaghetti much, either.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

14. Please tell me that you didn't actually try to do this !

[NCjack]

15. No, I didn't do it. A pal who was a pharmacy student promised himself

to do it if he failed his senior exams. It was great motivation, and he passed.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

16. Thank god he passed !

This would have made news on an international scale !

[yonder]

5. Well, whaddaya know? Thanks for this.

[Nevilledog]

6. Great read.. Thanks!

[apkhgp]

7. Your list of reasons for polygraphs is logical

When have you known a Right Winger to be logical? I mean they have control of OUR White House, House, and Senate ( for the time being ). They seem to be setting the rules of the game, no matter how ridiculous they are.