Not to be a skunk at the party, but lie detector results are not admissable in court, which means there is reasonable doubt as to their efficacy.
This is high stakes poker, if, indeed, Babin's story has any validity. The administration has to have Rockefeller dead to rights to fire this silver bullet. Otherwise, an unverifiable accusation against a sitting Senator of the opposite party could swing the momentum that is now in Bush's favor on NSA surveillance completely against him.
Besides, if the Judith Miller precedent holds, Rockefeller knows--if, indeed, he is the leaker--that he is completely at the mercy of James Rosen and Rosen's desire to spend time in the hoosegow in defense of him.
Ok, skunk,...lol... the point is to make him refuse to take the polygraph. Let him dance and deny.
unless he used a cell phone to talk to Rosen, or some other telephone or email mechanism that is traceable.
Sandy Bergler was caught with classified documents stuffed in his pants and socks, and he admitted destroying some others, and all he got was a slap on the wrist, a small fine, and the loss of his security clearance for 3 years (if I remember right).
You're correct..Babbin said that polugraph results are not admissible, but he reiterated that under the code of secrecy, or whatever it is they sign..FAILURE to submit to a request for a polygraph is immediate grounds for loss of security clearance and access..
But if you pass a lie detector pass, you have less a chance of being prosecuted, unless they have other much more damning evidence.
Which is why we will see the DNC offering classes for their members on "How to properly take a lie detector test...And Pass!"
For the swimmer there will be a Cliff Notes version.
As I understand, having a security clearance means that you have to submit to a polygraph at any time. If he refuses to take the polygraph, no big deal, it just means that he can't be ranking member on the committee. Look for him to step down from that role in the committee.