results of the polygraph exam she took. joining us now is jeremiah hanafin who administered it. this is a photo of her taking it released by professor ford s legal team. mr. hanafin is a professional polygraph examiner. prior to that he served 25 years as an fbi special agent in part in that capacity, the usual caveats about polygraphs apply. generally, though, not always admissible in court. their use is disputed in the scientific community. appreciate you being with us. can you explain for us how the test sad madministered? i understand she told her full accounts of the allegations first. sure. polygraph is essentially three phases. you have your pretest, your preinterview phase. that s when you discuss the matter at hand. you talk we talked about the allegations. that process can take anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. you explain the polygraph. you want to assess the person, make sure she s fit to take a polygraph examination. so the interview prior to the exam, she described
lookal his reputation and really try to null all this out. i don t know enough, i m going to go on what i do know. i would be surprised if he s not confirmed. barrett, ken, you helped the audience tonight, you made smart arguments and thank you for that. if professor ford s claims can t be corroborated which is what we re herring from those who have looks at the fbi assessment, they found no basis of corroboration. what does that mean? the needle has to move toward kavanaugh and confirmation. but then you can have a secondary analysis how could they have corroborated? did they have the time? the direction that would enable them to do so? ford wasn t interviewed. neither was kavanaugh, was this thorough or was it a sham? the facts, next. only fidelity offers
i would be surprised if he s not confirmed. barrett, ken, you helped the audience tonight, you made smart arguments and thank you for that. if professor ford s claims can t be corroborated which is what we re herring from those who have looks at the fbi assessment, they found no basis of corroboration. what does that mean? the needle has to move toward kavanaugh and confirmation. but then you can have a secondary analysis how could they have corroborated? did they have the time? the direction that would enable them to do so? ford wasn t interviewed. neither was kavanaugh, was this thorough or was it a sham? the facts, next. only fidelity offers
they are denying all access to very extremely important pieces of evidence and this comes as new questions are being raised about professor ford s testimony by a long time ex-boyfriend. we will bring you that report. also tonight, now that the smears and the fbi investigation are not working, don t be surprised because the democrats, they want to see if the topic. now they want the vote to be about temperament. whether judge kavanaugh through i set up our at somebody in college. any republican that allows the slander to become the new standard in this country is a disgrace. it will never end and you would be encouraging this behavior. we have all the latest examples of the left trying to govern by mob rule as they continue to stop over simple, basic, american human rights, decency, due process, and something called the presumption of innocence. by the way, a heavy dose of common sense and so much more.
these issues with small spaces. she frequently flew in airplanes to and from hawaii and lived in a small 500 square-foot apartment with one door and never mentioned anything about assaulted. he also claimed that ford once counseled a friend on how to pass a polygraph test. prior to a job interview with the fbi. that s a claim that friend is denying. now remember during ford s testimony, she emphasized her total in extremes with polygraphs. naturally abc and cbs, they totally ignore the story. that is called by a civil omission, shouldn t shock us. meanwhile in a case of claimed bias, the daily caller is reporting that three different nbc news stories on judge kavanaugh, three of them, face huge accuracy issues. by the way, , and elect, tom brokaw, are you proud of your network? the brand you spent a lifetime building? are you happy now to be an arm of the democratic party? and as you can see the left does not care about evidence, due