FBI Begins Polygraph Witch Hunt for Leakers | Drudge Retort

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

FBI Begins Polygraph Witch Hunt for Leakers

The Trumpf junta is ramping up investigations into alleged leaks to the news media, in some cases using polygraph tests that current and former officials say are creating a climate of fear and intimidation. At D/FBI Kash Patel's direction, the bureau in recent weeks has begun administering polygraph tests to identify the source of information leaks. "People are trying to keep their heads down," said one former FBI Senior SA. "Morale's in the toilet. ... When you see people who are being investigated, or names [of agents who worked on Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot cases] being passed over to the DOJ, it's what the f"?" Below: The two most unworthiest creatures to ever direct the FBI.

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 09:30 PM | 16 COMMENTS | permalink

More

America's number one line of defense is going to waste time and resources hunting down disgruntled federal employees. Meanwhile, DOGE and the oligarchs will pick the bones dry of America's wealth.

#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-04-30 01:20 PM

I have in my hand the names of 27 leakers...

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-04-30 01:22 PM

polygraph huh... what happens after that.?

Tie them up... throw them in a river and see if they float?

#3 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2025-05-01 01:35 AM

I was subjected to polygraph testing at least 15 times during my career. Polygraphs are a routine part of law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Any government employee with a security clearance has been through a polygraph, and depending on the level, many times. Witch hunt? Hardly. The results of a polygraph can't be used against a person in court, or used to terminate employment, let alone burn them at the stake. It can, however, be used as an investigative tool to help steer an investigation Perhaps Trump should start with his Cabinet.

Funny thing, elected and appointed officials aren't generally required to undergo polygraph testing to obtain a security clearance. Maybe they should be.

#4 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-05-01 02:00 AM

Not all government employees with security clearances are polygraphed. Many federal employees have a SECRET clearance and no access to sensitive compartmentalized information and they are not polygraphed. However, USIC personnel with TS-SCI security clearances at CIA, DIA, or NSA, do undergo an initial polygraph examination. At CIA and NSA, the polygraph examination is twenty questions (ten for Counterintelligence and ten for Lifestyles). DIA did not require a Lifestyles polygraph examination. USIC personnel are then subjected to periodic examinations every five years. I was polygraphed seven times in my career, initial and then periodic. If anyone has been polygraphed 15 times they must either be twice as old as me or they were investigated several times.

#5 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-01 11:16 AM

Polygraphs is where I drew the line. Cost me a career working in government contracts, which is fine.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-01 11:27 AM

Hi Snoofy: Unfortunately, some of us were compelled to take them because of our careers. I dreaded taking each of them, but I survived all of them. This Trumpf junta tactic of using polygraphs to detect leakers is just blatant fascism and has nothing to do with national security.

#7 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-01 01:06 PM

Did they check your shoes for thumbtacks?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-01 01:14 PM

"Yeah, I was so important I took like 15 polygraphs!"
"Well, I was so important I didn't take any polygraphs at all!"
"Hunh. I knew all kinds of stuff, though. Then Rolling Stone paid me like ...a hundred dollars... to tell them some of it!"
"Whatever. The government begged me to do all their ...stuff, you know, that takes a lot of ...poly graphs and like that, but y'know what? I turned 'em down!"

#9 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-01 01:27 PM

Aren't polygraphs a dumb myth? Like chiropractors? from ai:"While often called "lie detectors," polygraphs don't directly detect lies. They measure physiological responses like heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity, based on the idea that lying causes stress and anxiety, leading to changes in these responses.

However, the scientific consensus is that polygraphs are not a reliable or accurate way to detect deception. Here's why:

* **No unique physiological indicator of lying exists.** Anxiety, nervousness, fear, or even medical conditions can trigger similar physiological responses in innocent people.
* **High error rates:** Studies have shown significant error rates, with many false positives (innocent people flagged as deceptive) and false negatives (guilty people passing the test). Some research suggests accuracy is only slightly better than chance.
* **Countermeasures:** Individuals can learn and use techniques to manipulate their physiological responses and potentially "beat" the test.
* **Subjectivity:** Interpretation of polygraph results relies heavily on the examiner's judgment, introducing potential bias and inconsistency.

Most psychologists and scientific bodies agree there's little scientific basis for the expectation of high accuracy from polygraph tests. Courts often exclude polygraph evidence due to its unreliability.

So, while the idea of a lie detector is appealing, the scientific evidence suggests that polygraphs are indeed unreliable and more of a myth than a dependable truth-seeking tool."

#10 | Posted by Brennnn at 2025-05-01 01:29 PM

Shoot, wait...
"I was so important, so trustworthy, that every time some things got leaked, they came to polygraph me first!"

#11 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-01 01:32 PM

Brennan,
I was not a polygraph examiner but I worked very closely with them, specifically in criminal investigations. No examiner worth his salt would characterize a polygraph as "pass or fail". They evaluate the entirety of the examination and the "results" are far more nuanced than flagging deception on a particular question, so indeed, examiner judgement and subjectivity is very important.

I attended training seminars where experienced polygraphers acting as test subjects employed countermeasures to try to "beat" the test and fool other experienced polygraphers. I never saw one fully succeed. When a well trained examiner proceeds through a carefully selected set of questions and follow ups, circling back to the subject matter, the subtle difference in those physiologic changes move that needle. That being said, the uncertainty and variation in skill level throughout the industry is reason enough to keep polygraphs inadmissible in court.

The true value of the polygraph examination in criminal investigations is to coax the truth from a reluctant subject. A good examiner incorporates interview and interrogation skills to persuade the subject to be forthcoming. Sometimes the stress of the test and fear of discovery is enough to elicit a full confession.

#12 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-05-01 02:07 PM

"The true value of the polygraph examination in criminal investigations is to coax the truth from a reluctant subject."

Correct. It's a bluff. But police are free to lie to people they investigate so it's a very convoluted bluff to set up, when police could just lie and say we have witnesses, we have your prints at the scene, or any other lie that doesn't involve fancy props.

Though on some people all that theater could certainly be effective.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-01 02:11 PM

#8 and 10: Like you wrote, polygraphs are not lie detectors, they merely detect changes in sweat, breathing, blood pressure, or pulse rate when answering questions. Interviewees are given the questions and answer them 'Yes' or 'No' before being strapped into the apparatus. Test questions are administered to establish a baseline for the subject. A competent polygrapher can resolve an issue with the subject that the machine detects. This happened to me many years ago when a routine question I answered caused me some anxiety which the machine detected. After I was unstrapped, the polygrapher then asked me about that issue. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why that question bothered me internally. The polygrapher worked with me, understood my anxiety, and then re-worded the question which I answered. I was then re-strapped into the apparatus and that re-worded question no longer stressed me.

The polygraph is just another "tool in the kit," like neuro-linguistic programing (NLP) or standard interrogation techniques. No one is convicted on the basis of a polygraph, but they can be denied a job.

Years ago in Iraq, my colleagues located and rendered Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ineffective. One of AMZ's deputies was caught and standard interrogation techniques worked on the EPW-- no torture or polygraphs were necessary. Some of these techniques, like NLP, are quite effective. None of these techniques should be used to ferret out leakers or so-called "enemies of the state."

#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-01 02:17 PM

Before he hit on that religion gig, Joseph Smith used seer stones in attempts to locate lost treasure. So, seer stones. Good to go?

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-05-02 06:21 AM

Here is Kash's book. I have just got to come up with a book for that fat------------- traitor so I can become VP or Sec of D.

www.theguardian.com

#16 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2025-05-02 05:07 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

US Senator Dragged Out of News Conference (126 comments)

Noem: Fed is 'liberating' Los Angeles (88 comments)

Israel Hits Iran (79 comments)

Weather Could Impact Trump's Multi-Million Dollar Military Parade Saturday (46 comments)

DNC Ousts David Hogg as Vice-Chairman (26 comments)

US to Pull Some Personnel from the Middle East (24 comments)

Marines Authorized to Detain Citizens Protesting in LA (24 comments)

Gabbard Warns of 'nuclear Holocaust' in Social Media Video (23 comments)

Real Estate Market Crashing Before Our Eyes (21 comments)

US Oil Output Set for First Annual Drop Since Pandemic (19 comments)