A former interrogator for the CIA noted that Brett Kavanaugh was the most "deceptive" interview subject he'd ever seen based on an analysis of his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.
"Truth is a fascinating thing," deception detection expert Phil Houston wrote in a Law & Crime editorial.
Most viewers were searching for indicators of truth when watching Kavanaugh and his first accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the September 27 hearing, Houston noted — "and it didn’t seem to materialize."
"As remarkable as this hearing was for its strangeness, it was, in my opinion, even more remarkable for the ready availability of the answers everyone was seeking," he wrote. "From my view, the clues to the truth we all so desperately wanted to find—whether or not Kavanaugh did what Ford had alleged—were right there in front of us for all to behold."
"The deceptive behaviors were plentiful," the ex-interrogator added.
That deception was on full display in the way Kavanaugh delivered "blistering attacks," evaded answering questions and worked "rigorously" to influence how the audience viewed him.
"This telling combination of attack, evasion, and persuasion behaviors presented the lie in astounding clarity," Houston noted. "Rarely have I seen a case in which the deception was so vividly presented."
He also said the Senate committee's hearings did not seem designed to get to the truth.
"Rarely have I seen a case in which the search for truth has been so highly politicized, and for good reason," he added. "The stakes are enormous. The political prize that will be awarded based on the outcome of Kavanaugh’s confirmation process presents the most compelling opportunity we have seen in years for one political party to gain advantage over the other."
Read the entire editorial via Law & Crime.
