Strozk Failed His Lie Detector Test: He Lied TO The FBI

[The Original Tree]

Where are the charges of "Lying to the FBI" for a man who actually was PROVEN to have LIED?

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

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.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Eh, you know, none of that is verifiable..I'm not getting into this one.

 

[The Original Tree]

Eh, you know, none of that is verifiable..I'm not getting into this one.

After Strzok was recently removed from official responsibility within the FBI, his security clearances were retroactively revoked. That revocation was due to OPR review and was a retroactive revocation action initiated by career officials within the FBI to cover-up (ie. CYA) the two-and-a-half years he was allowed to work when he should not have been.

Current FBI officials, including Trump appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray, are covering up the scandal within the FBI in a misguided effort to save the institution.

This is the same reason the FBI hid the Strzok/Page memos and emails away from IG review and congressional oversight.

There is a massive, ongoing, ‘institutional’ cover-up within the DOJ and FBI. These are simply examples highlighting the severity therein. Peter Strzok and his legal team are counting on the need for the institution to be protected as their shield from any prosecution.

 

[The Original Tree]

About Strzok’s “out of scope” polygraph…

One of the few points raised in the Strozk hearing yesterday that caught my attention emerged from Rep. Collins’ questioning.

Collins asked Strzok when he last passed a polygraph test.

After some bantering and parsing, a couple of points were established:

1) Strzok said that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago

2) Strzok confirmed that he (and his superiors) were notified in January 2016 that his polygraph was “out of scope”

3) The FBI took no action based on the out of scope notification.

FBI agents are required to periodically pass polygraph examinations. Generally, the “period” is every 5 years.

An agent’s polygraph is “out of scope” if the agent hasn’t passed a polygraph within the specified period.

Note: “Hasn’t passed” is not necessarily the same as “failed” since an agent may not have taken a polygraph within the time period, the polygraph may have been inconclusive, or the polygraph may have raised issues that haven’t been resolved.

Strzok confirmed that he was notified in January 2016 that that his polygraph was out of scope.

Then, Strzok told Collins, under oath, that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago (i.e. within the required time period).. and that he hadn’t failed it.

If both claims are true, that means that his last test results were either inconclusive or raised issues that hadn’t been resolved.

============

What’s the ‘so what?”

Under FBI policy, agents whose polygraph are are out of scope are supposed to have their security clearances suspended or severely restricted.

The FBI did neither.

Note: Unrelated to Strzok, the OIG conducted an investigation of FBI practices re: resolving out of scope polygraphs and the OIG concluded that policy enforcement was unevenly applied and generally lax.

Strzok was allowed to remain in his position and maintain his high level security clearances.

At the time (January 2016), Strzok was leading the Clinton investigation.

Think about that for a second.

By FBI policy, since his polygraph was out of scope, he should not have been cleared for access to classified information.

But of course, the whole investigation revolved around handling of classified information.

Bottom line: Following FBI policy, Strzok shouldn’t have been on the Clinton case, let alone leading it.

That strikes me as a pretty big issue that folks should be drilling down on…

=============

Link to the Mueller Investigation

Of course, Strzok not only led the Clinton investigation, he was also assigned to the Mueller probe.

That is until Mueller fired him and he was reassigned to the FBI’s HR department

One of the lighter moments in the hearing was when some Congressman said that being moved to HR is a BIG demotion. All folks in “human capital” positions must have cringed at that one.

Strzok danced around questions re: why he was reassigned. He claimed that it wasn’t because of bias, but of the “perception of bias”… and that Mueller didn’t tell him why he was being reassigned (huh?).

My hunch: Mueller was finally enforcing the FBI policy re: out of scope polygraphs … which was disqualifying for Strzok.

About the time of Strzok’s reassignment (I think), is when the OIG was investigating out of scope enforcement and when Congressman Collins identified Strzok’s out of scope situation as problematic.

Click to view a video of Collins grilling Wray and Rosenstein of the issue. Relevant part stats at the 2 minute mark.

Disqualifying for the Trump probe, but not disqualifying for the Clinton “matter”.

Say, what?

==============

Maybe, as James Carville said during the Bill Clinton impeachment, “It’s all about sex”.

Security mavens are conjecturing that Strzok was probably evasive in his polygraph about his then secret affair with another FBI employee.

That hypothesis is plausible but has not been confirmed with supporting facts.

Even if that’s the case, “just about sex” isn’t a valid defense.

An FBI candidate would be disqualified under those circumstances since they are presumed to be either subject to blackmail or, at the least, severely distracted.

My conclusions: Strzok shouldn’t have been assigned to either the Clinton or Trump cases … and Mueller took the right course by firing him.

Broader than that, it makes me very nervous that this guy was running the FBI’s counter-terrorism department.

Surely, the FBI had better people for the jobs.

That’s a failure of leadership, Mr. Comey.

 

[Thinker101]

Eh, you know, none of that is verifiable..I'm not getting into this one.

After Strzok was recently removed from official responsibility within the FBI, his security clearances were retroactively revoked. That revocation was due to OPR review and was a retroactive revocation action initiated by career officials within the FBI to cover-up (ie. CYA) the two-and-a-half years he was allowed to work when he should not have been.

Current FBI officials, including Trump appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray, are covering up the scandal within the FBI in a misguided effort to save the institution.

This is the same reason the FBI hid the Strzok/Page memos and emails away from IG review and congressional oversight.

There is a massive, ongoing, ‘institutional’ cover-up within the DOJ and FBI. These are simply examples highlighting the severity therein. Peter Strzok and his legal team are counting on the need for the institution to be protected as their shield from any prosecution.

Well, we know Comey and McCabe won't recall any of that.

 

[easyt65]

Being a member of a Counter-Intelligence Agency, where they spend an entire career manipulating people by convincing them their BS, propaganda, and lies are 'truth', I think it is a requirement to lie, lie often, and perfect the trade. As he went further in the FBI he did just that until he became their #1 Counter-Intelligence Agent.

 

[easyt65]

About Strzok’s “out of scope” polygraph…

One of the few points raised in the Strozk hearing yesterday that caught my attention emerged from Rep. Collins’ questioning.

Collins asked Strzok when he last passed a polygraph test.

After some bantering and parsing, a couple of points were established:

1) Strzok said that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago

2) Strzok confirmed that he (and his superiors) were notified in January 2016 that his polygraph was “out of scope”

3) The FBI took no action based on the out of scope notification.

FBI agents are required to periodically pass polygraph examinations. Generally, the “period” is every 5 years.

An agent’s polygraph is “out of scope” if the agent hasn’t passed a polygraph within the specified period.

Note: “Hasn’t passed” is not necessarily the same as “failed” since an agent may not have taken a polygraph within the time period, the polygraph may have been inconclusive, or the polygraph may have raised issues that haven’t been resolved.

Strzok confirmed that he was notified in January 2016 that that his polygraph was out of scope.

Then, Strzok told Collins, under oath, that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago (i.e. within the required time period).. and that he hadn’t failed it.

If both claims are true, that means that his last test results were either inconclusive or raised issues that hadn’t been resolved.

============

What’s the ‘so what?”

Under FBI policy, agents whose polygraph are are out of scope are supposed to have their security clearances suspended or severely restricted.

The FBI did neither.

Note: Unrelated to Strzok, the OIG conducted an investigation of FBI practices re: resolving out of scope polygraphs and the OIG concluded that policy enforcement was unevenly applied and generally lax.

Strzok was allowed to remain in his position and maintain his high level security clearances.

At the time (January 2016), Strzok was leading the Clinton investigation.

Think about that for a second.

By FBI policy, since his polygraph was out of scope, he should not have been cleared for access to classified information.

But of course, the whole investigation revolved around handling of classified information.

Bottom line: Following FBI policy, Strzok shouldn’t have been on the Clinton case, let alone leading it.

That strikes me as a pretty big issue that folks should be drilling down on…

=============

Link to the Mueller Investigation

Of course, Strzok not only led the Clinton investigation, he was also assigned to the Mueller probe.

That is until Mueller fired him and he was reassigned to the FBI’s HR department

One of the lighter moments in the hearing was when some Congressman said that being moved to HR is a BIG demotion. All folks in “human capital” positions must have cringed at that one.

Strzok danced around questions re: why he was reassigned. He claimed that it wasn’t because of bias, but of the “perception of bias”… and that Mueller didn’t tell him why he was being reassigned (huh?).

My hunch: Mueller was finally enforcing the FBI policy re: out of scope polygraphs … which was disqualifying for Strzok.

About the time of Strzok’s reassignment (I think), is when the OIG was investigating out of scope enforcement and when Congressman Collins identified Strzok’s out of scope situation as problematic.

Click to view a video of Collins grilling Wray and Rosenstein of the issue. Relevant part stats at the 2 minute mark.

Disqualifying for the Trump probe, but not disqualifying for the Clinton “matter”.

Say, what?

==============

Maybe, as James Carville said during the Bill Clinton impeachment, “It’s all about sex”.

Security mavens are conjecturing that Strzok was probably evasive in his polygraph about his then secret affair with another FBI employee.

That hypothesis is plausible but has not been confirmed with supporting facts.

Even if that’s the case, “just about sex” isn’t a valid defense.

An FBI candidate would be disqualified under those circumstances since they are presumed to be either subject to blackmail or, at the least, severely distracted.

My conclusions: Strzok shouldn’t have been assigned to either the Clinton or Trump cases … and Mueller took the right course by firing him.

Broader than that, it makes me very nervous that this guy was running the FBI’s counter-terrorism department.

Surely, the FBI had better people for the jobs.

That’s a failure of leadership, Mr. Comey.

I watched an interview with Carville years later after he stopped working for the President. He was extremely candid when he very casually stated that his job was to LIE. He said he was paid well to do it, too, and had no ethical, moral, or conscience issue with doing so....I found most Democrats / Liberals to be like that. If the pay check is big enough anything is for sale, even their soul.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you have that from a credible source?

 

[Asclepias]

Where are the charges of "Lying to the FBI" for a man who actually was PROVEN to have LIED?

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

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.

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

 

[Pete7469]

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

So they're just like you, aye?

 

[The Original Tree]

About Strzok’s “out of scope” polygraph…

One of the few points raised in the Strozk hearing yesterday that caught my attention emerged from Rep. Collins’ questioning.

Collins asked Strzok when he last passed a polygraph test.

After some bantering and parsing, a couple of points were established:

1) Strzok said that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago

2) Strzok confirmed that he (and his superiors) were notified in January 2016 that his polygraph was “out of scope”

3) The FBI took no action based on the out of scope notification.

FBI agents are required to periodically pass polygraph examinations. Generally, the “period” is every 5 years.

An agent’s polygraph is “out of scope” if the agent hasn’t passed a polygraph within the specified period.

Note: “Hasn’t passed” is not necessarily the same as “failed” since an agent may not have taken a polygraph within the time period, the polygraph may have been inconclusive, or the polygraph may have raised issues that haven’t been resolved.

Strzok confirmed that he was notified in January 2016 that that his polygraph was out of scope.

Then, Strzok told Collins, under oath, that he last took a polygraph 2 or 3 years ago (i.e. within the required time period).. and that he hadn’t failed it.

If both claims are true, that means that his last test results were either inconclusive or raised issues that hadn’t been resolved.

============

What’s the ‘so what?”

Under FBI policy, agents whose polygraph are are out of scope are supposed to have their security clearances suspended or severely restricted.

The FBI did neither.

Note: Unrelated to Strzok, the OIG conducted an investigation of FBI practices re: resolving out of scope polygraphs and the OIG concluded that policy enforcement was unevenly applied and generally lax.

Strzok was allowed to remain in his position and maintain his high level security clearances.

At the time (January 2016), Strzok was leading the Clinton investigation.

Think about that for a second.

By FBI policy, since his polygraph was out of scope, he should not have been cleared for access to classified information.

But of course, the whole investigation revolved around handling of classified information.

Bottom line: Following FBI policy, Strzok shouldn’t have been on the Clinton case, let alone leading it.

That strikes me as a pretty big issue that folks should be drilling down on…

=============

Link to the Mueller Investigation

Of course, Strzok not only led the Clinton investigation, he was also assigned to the Mueller probe.

That is until Mueller fired him and he was reassigned to the FBI’s HR department

One of the lighter moments in the hearing was when some Congressman said that being moved to HR is a BIG demotion. All folks in “human capital” positions must have cringed at that one.

Strzok danced around questions re: why he was reassigned. He claimed that it wasn’t because of bias, but of the “perception of bias”… and that Mueller didn’t tell him why he was being reassigned (huh?).

My hunch: Mueller was finally enforcing the FBI policy re: out of scope polygraphs … which was disqualifying for Strzok.

About the time of Strzok’s reassignment (I think), is when the OIG was investigating out of scope enforcement and when Congressman Collins identified Strzok’s out of scope situation as problematic.

Click to view a video of Collins grilling Wray and Rosenstein of the issue. Relevant part stats at the 2 minute mark.

Disqualifying for the Trump probe, but not disqualifying for the Clinton “matter”.

Say, what?

==============

Maybe, as James Carville said during the Bill Clinton impeachment, “It’s all about sex”.

Security mavens are conjecturing that Strzok was probably evasive in his polygraph about his then secret affair with another FBI employee.

That hypothesis is plausible but has not been confirmed with supporting facts.

Even if that’s the case, “just about sex” isn’t a valid defense.

An FBI candidate would be disqualified under those circumstances since they are presumed to be either subject to blackmail or, at the least, severely distracted.

My conclusions: Strzok shouldn’t have been assigned to either the Clinton or Trump cases … and Mueller took the right course by firing him.

Broader than that, it makes me very nervous that this guy was running the FBI’s counter-terrorism department.

Surely, the FBI had better people for the jobs.

That’s a failure of leadership, Mr. Comey.

I watched an interview with Carville years later after he stopped working for the President. He was extremely candid when he very casually stated that his job was to LIE. He said he was paid well to do it, too, and had no ethical, moral, or conscience issue with doing so....I found most Democrats / Liberals to be like that. If the pay check is big enough anything is for sale, even their soul.

Carville is and always has been the most disgusting liar on The Planet. Hillary Clinton might outrank him though.

 

[theHawk]

Where are the charges of "Lying to the FBI" for a man who actually was PROVEN to have LIED?

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

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.

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

The FEDs do use them for security clearances though. Now go sit down.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

So they're just like you, aye?

Yep. I can typically tell when someone is stressed or being evasive.

 

[Asclepias]

Where are the charges of "Lying to the FBI" for a man who actually was PROVEN to have LIED?

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

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.

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

The FEDs do use them for security clearances though. Now go sit down.

A security clearance isnt a trial. Now shut up dummy.

 

[Siete]

could have been like Kushner - he forgot to mention his Russian connection .... slipped right by him.

 

[skookerasbil]

Special Counsel time s0ns!!. Or, we need an AG to clean some clocks over there at the DOJ.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liars creating false reports. Not surprising. What is surprising is how the lie infested, bogus, witch hunt plods along.

 

[Siete]

Liars creating false reports. Not surprising. What is surprising is how the lie infested, bogus, witch hunt plods along.

RUSSIAN ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Leo123]

Where are the charges of "Lying to the FBI" for a man who actually was PROVEN to have LIED?

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

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.

Youre a moron. There is a reason polygraphs are not admissible. They dont prove anything.

The FEDs do use them for security clearances though. Now go sit down.

A security clearance isnt a trial. Now shut up dummy.

Flynn’s interview wasn’t a trial either.