Jump to content

Politicians lying


17thfabn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

There is one major problem with that. Lie detectors only detect people knowingly telling a lie. It's those people who believe their policies are correct and will pass a lie detector test. These are the people who scare me, rather than some lying politician who will comprise when presented with facts that don't support his policies.

There are people who can beat the box. Seems to be common knowledge that the CIA trains their field agents suchly, and I bet tons of Feebies practice it to stay out of jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

There are people who can beat the box.

Like psychopaths or politicians! Perhaps that is redundant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
6 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

George Santos in his Space Force uniform. I didn't realize he had been in the service. 

May be an image of 1 person

It's a shame his service record was destroyed in the St Louis archive fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

It's a shame his service record was destroyed in the St Louis archive fire.

Edited by 17thfabn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

It's a shame his service record was destroyed in the St Louis archive fire.

Unfortunately even if his service records hadn't been destroyed in the  1973 VA Fire, since he was involved in activities of the most critical and secret nature the records couldn't be released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 3:57 PM, Ssnake said:

A thumbtack in your shoe may cause sufficient distress to make lie detector results inconclusive. It's really bizarre how the US still clings to them as being something that can be submitted as evidence in a court when pretty much any other country has thrown them out for their unreliability.

You will perhaps enjoy this one..

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ames.html

Dear Mr. Aftergood,

Having had considerable experience with the polygraph (well beyond that which you referred to), I read your very sensible essay in Science with great interest. I offer you a few comments on the topic for whatever interest or use they may have.

Like most junk science that just won't die (graphology, astrology and homeopathy come to mind), because of the usefulness or profit their practitioners enjoy, the polygraph stays with us.

Its most obvious use is as a coercive aid to interrogators, lying somewhere on the scale between the rubber truncheon and the diploma on the wall behind the interrogator's desk. It depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting -- you'll be fired, you won't get the job, you'll be prosecuted, you'll go to prison -- and the credulous fear the device inspires. This is why the Redmond report ventures into the simultaneously ludicrous and sinister reality that citizens' belief in what is untrue must be fostered and strengthened. Rarely admitted, this proposition is of general application for our national security apparatus.

You didn't mention one of the intriguing elements of the interrogations of Dr. Lee which is in fact quite common -- the false representation to the subject of the polygraph results. Because interrogations are intended to coerce confessions of one sort or another, interrogators feel themselves entirely justified in using their coercive means as flexibly as possible to extract them. Consistency regarding the particular technique is not important; inducing anxiety and fear is the point.

Polygraphers are fond of the technique used by psychics called cold reading, as a slightly less dramatic practice than actually lying to the subject about the results. In this sort of cold reading, the interrogator will suggest to the subject that there may be a potential problem, an ambiguous result, to one of the questions and inquire whether the subject knows of anything that might help clear it up, etc, etc.

Your account of the Redmond report -- I haven't seen it -- shows how another hoary slider is thrown past the public. The polygraph is asserted to have been a useful tool in counterintelligence investigations. This is a nice example of retreating into secret knowledge: we know it works, but it's too secret to explain. To my own knowledge and experience over a thirty year career this statement is a false one. The use of the polygraph (which is inevitably to say, its misuse) has done little more than create confusion, ambiguity and mistakes. I'd love to lay out this case for you, but unfortunately I cannot -- it's a secret too.

Most people in the intelligence and CI business are well aware of the theoretical and practical failings of the polygraph, but are equally alert to its value in institutional, bureaucratic terms and treasure its use accordingly. This same logic applies to its use in screening potential and current employees, whether of the CIA, NSA, DOE or even of private organizations.

Deciding whether to trust or credit a person is always an uncertain task, and in a variety of situations a bad, lazy or just unlucky decision about a person can result not only in serious problems for the organization and its purposes, but in career-damaging blame for the unfortunate decision-maker. Here, the polygraph is a scientific godsend: the bureaucrat accounting for a bad decision, or sometimes for a missed opportunity (the latter is much less often questioned in a bureaucracy) can point to what is considered an unassailably objective, though occasionally and unavoidably fallible, polygraph judgment. All that was at fault was some practical application of a "scientific" technique, like those frozen O-rings, or the sandstorms between the Gulf and Desert One in 1980.

I've seen these bureaucratically-driven flights from accountability operating for years, much to the cost of our intelligence and counterintelligence effectiveness. The US is, so far as I know, the only nation which places such extensive reliance on the polygraph. (The FBI, to its credit in a self-serving sort of way, also rejects the routine use of the polygraph on its own people.) It has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

On the other hand, there have been episodes in which high-level pressures to use or acquire certain persons entirely override pious belief in the polygraph. One instance which made the press is that of the Iranian connection in the Iran-Contra affair.

I wish you well in this particularly important theater of the struggle against pseudoscience: the national security state has many unfair and cruel weapons in its arsenal, but that of junk science is one which can be fought and perhaps defeated by honest and forthright efforts like yours.

your sincerely,

Aldrich H. Ames
40087-083
P.O. Box 3000
White Deer, PA 17887

 

Why not use divining rods? They at least have a proven level of productivity, at least in one application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You will perhaps enjoy this one..

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ames.html

Dear Mr. Aftergood,

Having had considerable experience with the polygraph (well beyond that which you referred to), I read your very sensible essay in Science with great interest. I offer you a few comments on the topic for whatever interest or use they may have.

Like most junk science that just won't die (graphology, astrology and homeopathy come to mind), because of the usefulness or profit their practitioners enjoy, the polygraph stays with us.

Its most obvious use is as a coercive aid to interrogators, lying somewhere on the scale between the rubber truncheon and the diploma on the wall behind the interrogator's desk. It depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting -- you'll be fired, you won't get the job, you'll be prosecuted, you'll go to prison -- and the credulous fear the device inspires. This is why the Redmond report ventures into the simultaneously ludicrous and sinister reality that citizens' belief in what is untrue must be fostered and strengthened. Rarely admitted, this proposition is of general application for our national security apparatus.

You didn't mention one of the intriguing elements of the interrogations of Dr. Lee which is in fact quite common -- the false representation to the subject of the polygraph results. Because interrogations are intended to coerce confessions of one sort or another, interrogators feel themselves entirely justified in using their coercive means as flexibly as possible to extract them. Consistency regarding the particular technique is not important; inducing anxiety and fear is the point.

Polygraphers are fond of the technique used by psychics called cold reading, as a slightly less dramatic practice than actually lying to the subject about the results. In this sort of cold reading, the interrogator will suggest to the subject that there may be a potential problem, an ambiguous result, to one of the questions and inquire whether the subject knows of anything that might help clear it up, etc, etc.

Your account of the Redmond report -- I haven't seen it -- shows how another hoary slider is thrown past the public. The polygraph is asserted to have been a useful tool in counterintelligence investigations. This is a nice example of retreating into secret knowledge: we know it works, but it's too secret to explain. To my own knowledge and experience over a thirty year career this statement is a false one. The use of the polygraph (which is inevitably to say, its misuse) has done little more than create confusion, ambiguity and mistakes. I'd love to lay out this case for you, but unfortunately I cannot -- it's a secret too.

Most people in the intelligence and CI business are well aware of the theoretical and practical failings of the polygraph, but are equally alert to its value in institutional, bureaucratic terms and treasure its use accordingly. This same logic applies to its use in screening potential and current employees, whether of the CIA, NSA, DOE or even of private organizations.

Deciding whether to trust or credit a person is always an uncertain task, and in a variety of situations a bad, lazy or just unlucky decision about a person can result not only in serious problems for the organization and its purposes, but in career-damaging blame for the unfortunate decision-maker. Here, the polygraph is a scientific godsend: the bureaucrat accounting for a bad decision, or sometimes for a missed opportunity (the latter is much less often questioned in a bureaucracy) can point to what is considered an unassailably objective, though occasionally and unavoidably fallible, polygraph judgment. All that was at fault was some practical application of a "scientific" technique, like those frozen O-rings, or the sandstorms between the Gulf and Desert One in 1980.

I've seen these bureaucratically-driven flights from accountability operating for years, much to the cost of our intelligence and counterintelligence effectiveness. The US is, so far as I know, the only nation which places such extensive reliance on the polygraph. (The FBI, to its credit in a self-serving sort of way, also rejects the routine use of the polygraph on its own people.) It has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

On the other hand, there have been episodes in which high-level pressures to use or acquire certain persons entirely override pious belief in the polygraph. One instance which made the press is that of the Iranian connection in the Iran-Contra affair.

I wish you well in this particularly important theater of the struggle against pseudoscience: the national security state has many unfair and cruel weapons in its arsenal, but that of junk science is one which can be fought and perhaps defeated by honest and forthright efforts like yours.

your sincerely,

Aldrich H. Ames
40087-083
P.O. Box 3000
White Deer, PA 17887

 

Why not use divining rods? They at least have a proven level of productivity, at least in one application.

Nice one, but the polygraph can be arguably be blamed for Edward Lee Howard defection, which was incredibly damaging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lee_Howard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RETAC21 said:

Nice one, but the polygraph can be arguably be blamed for Edward Lee Howard defection, which was incredibly damaging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lee_Howard

Its odd he maintained innocence of the death of Tolkachev. Been reading an interesting book that suggests there was a 'Third Man' in CIA at that time whom was never uncovered. Supposedly the Ames and Hansen dates dont line up for Oleg Gordievsky as well.

Yes, its primarily a tool of intimidation. If the subject refuses to be intimidated, its useless. Though as you say, there were plenty whom were unjustly intimidated by it, but Howard, and countless others during he Angleton years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its odd he maintained innocence of the death of Tolkachev. Been reading an interesting book that suggests there was a 'Third Man' in CIA at that time whom was never uncovered. Supposedly the Ames and Hansen dates dont line up for Oleg Gordievsky as well.

Yes, its primarily a tool of intimidation. If the subject refuses to be intimidated, its useless. Though as you say, there were plenty whom were unjustly intimidated by it, but Howard, and countless others during he Angleton years.

Indeed, "The Main Enemy" (https://www.amazon.es/Main-Enemy-Inside-Story-Showdown/dp/0345472500) makes the point that there are losses that happened before Ames walked in the Soviet embassy, but which Howard couldn't have possibly known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, its primarily a tool of intimidation. If the subject refuses to be intimidated, its useless.

Over 30 years ago, In the present job I have, I had to take a polygraph as part of the screening. About 20 of us had the same examiner. Every one of us wanted to kick his ass. He was highly aggressive trying get you to admit to something that would knock you out of a job. 

In hindsight it didn't really matter what the polygraph  said. It is what you admit to, even if you admit to things you didn't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 9:57 AM, Ssnake said:

... It's really bizarre how the US still clings to them as being something that can be submitted as evidence in a court when pretty much any other country has thrown them out for their unreliability.

Uh, no.  They are not admissible in US courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
40 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

George Santos has been arrested. How did he think he could get away with so much. He had to know there was a target on his back after lying so much.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/congressman-george-santos-charged-fraud-money-laundering-theft-public-funds-and-false

Maybe he thought with being a gay Hispanic he had double immunity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Maybe he thought with being a gay Hispanic he had double immunity.  

Doesn't Santos have an R next to his name? If so, no immunity for the "race traitor".

Assuming he actually did something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Maybe he thought with being a gay Hispanic he had double immunity.  

Maybe he should identify as a transsexual black, asian  Democrat, in addition to   being gay and hispanic. 

Edited by 17thfabn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Even if he changes his name to Jamila Chong Sitting Bull Santos (D) I don't think it will save him.

That being said he is a congressman from NY a city that is not known for its honesty.  There is a very good chance he may not be innocent and the FBI might actually have a solid case and not just been set loose by their Democrat handlers.

Edited by Wobbly Head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

Even if he changes his name to Jamila Chong Sitting Bull Santos (D) I don't think it will save him.

That being said he is a congressman from NY a city that is not known for its honesty.  There is a very good chance he may not be innocent and the FBI might actually have a solid case and not just been set loose by their Democrat handlers.

Santos represents a district on Long Island, not in New York City.
The FBI probably does have a solid case against him, what makes it so interesting is how quickly they moved forward with their investigations and indictments.  He's only been a public figure for the last four months.  Okay, six months if you go back to when he won his seat in November.  Compare and contrast his persecution by the FBI and DOJ, I'm sorry, prosecution, with that of the Biden Crime Family Syndicate.  The FBI has had the bank transaction flags since they were first issued in 2017, these are what James Comer is referencing when he outlines the tens of millions of dollars the Biden Crime Syndicate has been raking in through their shell companies.  Mind you, Comer and his congressional committee have only been working on this since January.  Then there is the Hunter Biden laptop with its trove of information.  Putting aside all the personal crimes HB memorialized on the laptop, it also included more evidence of the aforementioned foreign payoffs.  Said laptop having been in the possession of the FBI since 2019.  There is no DOJ investigation of these allegations just as there are no investigations of federal improprieties by Representative Ilhan Omar (MN-D), of which there appears to be many.

So forgive us our conspiracy theories if we believe had Santos a D following his name, he would be a darling of Washington politics, pure as the driven snow, and not at all on the FBI's radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the ins and outs of NY law. Typically when a vacancy comes up in the U.S. Senate or House of Reps the governor, in this case a Democrat appoints an interim member. In most cases from their own party. Then at some point there is an election for the seat for the remainder of the term. 

Does any one know what the law in New York State is?

I could see the powers that be in the Republican Party wanting to time a possible resignation of Santos so the probable Democratic replacement would be in office for as short a time as possible, or during a period such as the summer congressional break so they really wouldn't matter. From what I understand that area is fairly heavily Republican.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Santos represents a district on Long Island, not in New York City.
The FBI probably does have a solid case against him, what makes it so interesting is how quickly they moved forward with their investigations and indictments.  He's only been a public figure for the last four months.  Okay, six months if you go back to when he won his seat in November.  Compare and contrast his persecution by the FBI and DOJ, I'm sorry, prosecution, with that of the Biden Crime Family Syndicate.  The FBI has had the bank transaction flags since they were first issued in 2017, these are what James Comer is referencing when he outlines the tens of millions of dollars the Biden Crime Syndicate has been raking in through their shell companies.  Mind you, Comer and his congressional committee have only been working on this since January.  Then there is the Hunter Biden laptop with its trove of information.  Putting aside all the personal crimes HB memorialized on the laptop, it also included more evidence of the aforementioned foreign payoffs.  Said laptop having been in the possession of the FBI since 2019.  There is no DOJ investigation of these allegations just as there are no investigations of federal improprieties by Representative Ilhan Omar (MN-D), of which there appears to be many.

So forgive us our conspiracy theories if we believe had Santos a D following his name, he would be a darling of Washington politics, pure as the driven snow, and not at all on the FBI's radar.

 My mistake, isn't Long Island where the Soprano's based?

It could be a coincidence they are prosecuting quickly or it could be someone in the FBI is looking at the poll numbers and freely available evidence against Biden and saying oh crap we better start doing our job or the in coming Republican administration might start asking questions like "Do we need the FBI after their numerous screwups/bias when handling political sensitive cases." I know where I would bet money on. Which probably means they will have to reluctantly start a prosecution against someone in the Biden family just to protect the agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...