Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, It’s True: Peter Strzok Failed His Polygraph Yet Retained Security Clearance and Position…
The Last Refuge - Conservative Treehouse ^ | July 6, 2018 | sundance

Posted on 07/07/2018 9:34:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

[FULL TITLE] Yes, It’s True: Peter Strzok Failed His Polygraph Yet Retained Security Clearance and Position on Two Investigations…

I have been asked about this repeatedly:

Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ BREAKING: Strzok himself posed a national security risk while he was investigating Trump & his campaign aides for national security threats. Strzok flunked a 2016 internal polygraph by FBI, yet retained access to TS/SCI classified info & continued to run 2 major espionage probes 4:59 PM - 6 Jul 2018

Validating Paul Sperry’s tweet. Yes, FBI Agent Peter Strzok failed his polygraph and his supervisors were notified on January 16th, 2016, his results were “out of scope“. Meaning he failed his polygraph test. Yet he was never removed from any responsibilities; and against dept policy, he did not have his clearance revoked until he could clear.

This was discussed during the Rosenstein testimony and overlooked by most.

(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: 201601; 20160116; espionage; fbi; magoo; rosenstein; securityclearance; sessions; spies; spooks; strzok
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
How does that work? The only way to "fail" a polygraph that I know of is to lie and have the machine catch you in the lie.

Lying should immediately disqualify you from any position of trust. His clearance should have been pulled. Period.

21 posted on 07/07/2018 10:52:47 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps ( Be ready!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy

Go to the CTH and voice your opposition of Sessions. You will be eventually banned. If you don’t drink the coolaid of the popular contributors (and donator$) you will be called troll, etc. Posters there such as : For God and Country, Albertus Magnus, Fleaborg and a few others are Rabid sessions butt lickers.


22 posted on 07/07/2018 10:53:15 AM PDT by davidb56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
they weren’t admissible in court due to people being able to spoof them?

Spoofing is one problem. False positives are the bigger problem. Interview 100 people over a bank robbery and you will find a significant percentage of innocent people who seem guilty. Likewise you can miss the guilty person.

23 posted on 07/07/2018 10:55:05 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
The only way to "fail" a polygraph that I know of is to lie and have the machine catch you in the lie.

You can tell the truth and the machine can still catch you in a lie.

24 posted on 07/07/2018 10:55:59 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The process is that you keep retaking the poly, up to 3 times.

Then you’re denied clearance.


25 posted on 07/07/2018 11:04:42 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Don't pretend this is for criminal prosecution.

This is for access to our most critical national secrets.

There is NO RIGHT to this info!

It is NOT necessarily about "lying", rather an intent to deceive or withhold.

The gov't has every right to deny you access!

26 posted on 07/07/2018 11:07:57 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
So Strzok is controlled, then - he was able to keep his career in exchange for doing the bidding of the Deep State. Then HRC lost - oops!
27 posted on 07/07/2018 11:08:20 AM PDT by Major Matt Mason (The U.S. Senate - where American freedom goes to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Polygraphy is scientific hocus pocus. There is plenty to get Strzok on without dunking women to see if they are witches.


28 posted on 07/07/2018 11:10:00 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I’d like to see just how many of these clowns could pass a Yankee White background check.


29 posted on 07/07/2018 11:16:07 AM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy

Sessions is hiding in his office doing his damndest to undermine any prosecutions of the real criminals. Looks like he did a good job of letting the Awan case go bye- bye. Even Luke Rosisk, the reporter who has been on this case called Sessions Magoo.


30 posted on 07/07/2018 11:17:31 AM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Your opinion is NOT relevant here!

This is the written gov't POLICY regarding access to seriously classified info.

Per that policy, his access "should" have been denied.

31 posted on 07/07/2018 11:22:24 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Your opinion is NOT relevant here!

when did God die and leave you in charge.

It is not "my opinion" but the view of the panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

And my personal opinion is that you have a loathsome susceptibility to scientific humbuggery. Given that view I will henceforth discount the credibility of any position you post here.

There is an awful lot about the security clearance process that you are woefully ignorant of.

32 posted on 07/07/2018 11:35:54 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CopperTop
"Not to defend this joker or anything like that, but how reliable are those things?"

I always thought they were admissible in court... But, then again, I ain't no stinking, lousy, back stabbing lawyer...

33 posted on 07/07/2018 11:46:46 AM PDT by unread (Joe McCarthy was right.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AnthonySoprano

The question was “Is Sessions a part of the Deep State ?”

His answer was “No”.


34 posted on 07/07/2018 12:19:33 PM PDT by Terry Mross (On some threads it's best to go st inraight to the comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

bookmark


35 posted on 07/07/2018 12:36:38 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

While I believe he’s a traitor photographs aren’t reliable.


36 posted on 07/07/2018 12:47:15 PM PDT by Retvet (Retvet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unread
I always thought they were admissible in court..

No, polygraphy is not admissible in court because the necormancers who operate it cannot demonstrate that polygraphy meets even the low standards of reliability required by our judicial system.

37 posted on 07/07/2018 12:50:23 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

They’re not admissible because they’re utterly unreliable and mean nothing. Pretty much the only thing they’re actually good for is playing the “bad cop” part in good cop/ bad cop and getting people to confess. The whole science they’re based on is utter bunk. The damning part of this whole story is that the FBI still uses this junk science on its own agents.


38 posted on 07/07/2018 12:54:22 PM PDT by discostu (Does this kind of life look interesting to you?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Not all TS/SCI involves poly. If you fail the poly, you just can’t work poly gigs.


39 posted on 07/07/2018 1:45:01 PM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; azishot; ...

re-ping - title not showing correctly in search..


40 posted on 07/07/2018 1:57:09 PM PDT by bitt (Obama was eloquent with his lies, ..Trump is brutal with his truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson