200
Kash Patel Is Polygraphing FBI Staff to Find Out if They’re Being Mean About Him
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
200 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24707 readers
2938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cops and pseudoscience go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
For more examples, see "bite mark analysis," "911 call analysis," "blood spatter analysis," roadside drug testing with known false-positives, and even fingerprints (once the gold standard) have up to a 20% error rate.
And that's not even getting into how their methodology is exactly backwards: they have a claim that they set out to prove, but do no work to disprove what they already believe.
Blood spatter analysis isn't quite as nonsense as the rest. There are definitely factual conclusions that can be made based on where blood is found and how it is distributed or shaped.
Polygraph tests are an interrogation tool. While the "results" they produce directly are nonsense, they can be used as a lever to pressure a suspect to confess to a crime - with disregard as to whether they actually committed said crime. People who undergo polygraphs are also known to unload new information immediately after the "test" is over.
Remember, police are allowed to lie to you; you are not allowed to lie to the police. Shut the fuck up. Lawyer.
From ProPublica:
If blood is found underneath an object, you know that the blood got there first, and the object second. If you find a drop of blood among a bunch of fine mist, you may be able to predict that the fine mist is blood from a victim after a gunshot, while the drop might be from someone else, possibly the perpetrator.
Of course there are other observations which are misinterpreted, but the fact remains that blood spatter follows the laws of physics; therefore, it is possible to discover factual information from observing it.
Sure, but that's not what police refer to when they talk about blood spatter analysis. I'm not saying it's impossible to get good evidence from the location of blood; I'm saying that the bullshit they do around drop size and splatter patterns does not have any evidence to support it.
Edit: in other words, they want the credibility of science without doing the hard work of peer-review or falsification.