For a government agency that likes to brag that they do everything by the book, it seems testimony, regarding the use of polygraphs, given by the former Chief of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and former Acting Attorney General (DOJ), Rod Rosenstein, once again proves that ain’t the case.
The FBI requires their agents to pass polygraphs every so often – approximately every five years – as part of the security clearance. Congressional testimony from Strzok, Wray and Rosenstein tells us that’s one more protective guideline that they seem to have ignored.
On June 28th, 2018, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) grilled Acting Attorney General Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray on the rules governing out of scope polygraphs and access to sensitive compartmentalized information (SCI).
Rep. Collins wants to know how agent Strzok was brought into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email probe, an investigation with the potential to expose significant national security secrets, without being properly cleared according to existing FBI policy.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG COLLINS: “Let’s go back to something though that I asked you- that you and I had a conversation about a few months ago. This was Mr. Strzok’s issue.
I asked you at the time did he have his security clearance, you said you would check, you assumed he did at that point.
The concern I have here is, again, process inside the Department of Justice on what happens when you have someone of his caliber, counterintelligence level — this is not a new recruit.
This is somebody who’s been around, had very sensitive information and on January 13th, an individual from the F.B.I.’s Washington Field Office emailed Mr. Strzok and other workers that their polygraphs were out of, er, I think it was ‘out of scope’. I asked you about that and asked if he had been polygraphed, you didn’t know at the time. It said the polygraph raised flags.”
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb provide no answers other than they were still investigating. Collin’s interrogation of Rosenstein and Wray came two-and-a-half years after the violation of protocol was first reported.
By February 4th, 2016, Strzok had already taken the required polygraph and…it raised red flags!
Strzok acknowledged in the email to [redacted] that he and four other agents that had polygraphs that were similarly “out of scope”, had now had them completed:
Strzok claimed he was now qualified to be read-in to SCI. Except, his polygraph raised red flags.
Strzok’s email also raises the specter that people higher in the chain of command may have been similarly disqualified from being read-in to such sensitive compartmentalized information.
Rep. Collins took a shot at prying answers about this from agent Strzok but as you can hear for yourself, the former head of Counterintelligence for the FBI was deliberately evasive.
Collins wasn’t asking Strzok to divulge classified information, only whether he had been properly cleared to view that information.
The post We Just Got Our Hands On The Results Of Peter Strzok’s Polygraph … His, & 4 Other Agents, “Out of Scope” Polygraph Test Raised Red Flags & Even About Other Agents Assigned to the Clinton Email Investigation, and “People Higher in the Chain of Command” appeared first on Joe For America.
Visit the USSA News store!
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Raymond Draper
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://joeforamerica.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact the USSANews.com administrator by using the contact form located in the top-left menu. Your request will be immediately honored. Please visit http://joeforamerica.com for more terrific, conservative content. The owner of this website may be paid to recommend American Bullion. The content of this website, including the positive review of American Bullion, the negative review of its competitors, and any other information may not be independent or neutral.