I think it was a brilliant choice of words by Rob, because I think the courts consider all polygraph results to be inconclusive. And by saying that the results are inconclusive, and by saying he can make the results show inconclusive results, someone who takes a polygraph could easily point to the results and say "I was telling the truth even if the machine said I lied," or he could say "I lied even if the machine said I was telling the truth."

To have a polygraph results "stand" you would need to have the subject of the polygraph say "I believe the results of the polygraph and I will not challenge them." Then, the subject of the polygraph would be "stuck" with the results.

But when the potential subject of a polygraph raises any doubt, then like the court system has ruled, the results could not be used as proof.

So what Rob did was simply say, "don't bother with a polygraph."

So I have this question: would you accept the information from his tax returns if the tax return copies came directly from the IRS and we documented that the returns came right out of the mailing envelope from the IRS? You would have to accept that we would show only the lines show casino wins and casino losses which is really all we care about anyway.