[–] NotALawyer 2 points 30 points (+32|-2) ago 

might be cause polygraph isnt actually admissible as a proof.....

[–] cats_taste_good 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

They might be inadmissable in court, but they are used all the time within law enforcement to screen job candidates for even the lowliest of positions.

It's also common for law enforcement officers to have to take and pass polygraphs periodically as condition of continuing employment.

[–] undertheshills 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Which is retarded because you need 1/100th the training to be a hair stylist you do to run a polygraph. They are also proven to fail to catch liars and turn up false positives.

[–] cdglow 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

That's fine: nobody is suggesting to string him up based solely on a polygraph. This isn't about convicting somebody in a criminal trial, but about leaving somebody in that job position while there's a possibility that he's compromised in some way.

If the feds have proof that somebody failed a polygraph, is it appropriate to simply leave somebody in a high security position? What steps were taken to look further into why he failed the polygraph?

[–] justsayingmayne 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

polygraphs are inadmissible because they're based on subjective analysis of the interviewer

oh totes fine bro, but like since he failed it, we need to punish him further

hello? they mean literally nothing

[–] mailmetothemoon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Polygraphs are unreliable. Innocent until proven guilty. It is not considered proof by itself, but as supporting evidence. So yes. I would want him to stay in office.

[–] speedisavirus 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

It doesn't have to be admissable. You get polygraphs to maintain that clearance that he presumably had. You definitely need it to get it.

Source: been through it

[–] novictim [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You are one of the few people here who actually understand that this is not about the polygraph, itself, but about the FBI choosing to make an exception for Strzok.

[–] theHare 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Let’s consider context here mr. lawyer.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

[–] novictim [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Great, but you are missing the point. Protocol was not followed.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Their tarot protocol?

They should remove all tarot protocols immediately, they're specifically worse than useless, as we see in this case and every other case of a spy failing and still keeping his job, as listed on the link I gave.

[–] RedditIsForLiberals 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Why is the comment section of this post loaded with Reddit faggots brigading in to defend this fucking faggot Strozk and the corrupt FBI?

Anyone of you faggots defending this or dismissing polygraphs, you're just as much of the problem as Strozk is, you fucking dipshits. If you don't see it, wake up. If you do see it, but you're still championing this position, then fuck you motherfucker. I'll be happy to be on the side that kills your faggot ass in the coming Civil War.

[–] novictim [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What they don't seem to appreciate is that the wheels are turning and they, their faction, will soon be under those same wheels. Reciprocity is a bitch.

[–] mailmetothemoon 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Give us some damn proof that the polygraph is actually reliable. I'm all for stringing up authority figures but take your damn delusions elsewhere.

And news flash. There ain't gon be a civil war unless basic needs stop being served. Why the fuck do you think welfare exists? It's to prevent civil wars.

[–] whambamthankyouham 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No you fucktard. We don't need to. The discussion between the individuals in the hearing is that considering that it is FBI protocol to consider polygraphs when it relates to their work, what do they do when the polygraph finds that someone is lying or 'out of scope'?

Wray and Rosenstein are all of a sudden confused, just like your dumb ass, but the only difference is that you don't work at the FBI.

[–] RedditIsForLiberals 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is the point that everyone is arguing, the legitimacy of lie detector tests.

Who the fuck cares? I have friends in law enforcement and government jobs where they are required to be polygraphed every so often. If you fail, you are placed on temporary leave pending an investigation into why the test was failed.

The real issue here, is that protocol was not adhered to, and this traitorous motherfucker was not only allowed to keep working, but worked on 2 major investigations involving the POTUS.

How the fuck ANYONE doesn't think this is a huge fucking problem, is beyond me.

[–] HarryVonZell 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The FBI is exposed. Finally. They haven't solved a case since Ephram Zimbalist retired. I's just another weaponized democratic organization at this point. That fucknut Strzok just let us all see it all. They don't have investigators, they have lawyers.

Fuck, no wonder Mulder and Scully were stuck in the basement!

[–] novictim [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Should have been read out of SCI for this per procedure.

Sensitive compartmented information (SCI) is a type of United States classified information concerning or derived from sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes. All SCI must be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence.[1] Although some sources refer to SCI control systems as special access programs, the intelligence community itself considers SCI and SAPs distinct kinds of controlled access programs.[2] SCI is not a classification. SCI clearance has sometimes been called "above Top Secret,"[3] but information at any classification level may exist within an SCI control system. When "decompartmented," this information is treated the same as collateral information at the same classification level.


[–] RedditIsForLiberals 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

This motherfucker needs to be hanged for treason.

If he doesn't see the inside of a prison cell for the rest of his life, we, the American public, will choose to execute him at a time and place of our chosing.

[–] KittenCat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Given that polygraphs are pretty much worthless, why do we still use them for anything?

[–] novictim [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But they are used and protocol was not followed in the case of Strzok.

[–] KittenCat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I know, and I agree, they need to follow protocol. I just don't understand why anyone uses them in the first place.

[–] manxman 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

I don't think telling the truth is any sort of requirement, nor required, by any government employee. Isn't that why it's called the ministry of truth?

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)