PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The American Psychological Association put it even more plainly way back in 2004: "so-called 'lie detection' involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions." As the logic goes, one's heart rate increases when they're lying, leading to heavier breathing and perspiration. But those reactions can also be induced by the mere act of being questioned, which is why the state of New York ruled that polygraph tests are inadmissible court evidence in 1938 and nearly half the other states followed suit."
----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Polygraph Propaganda: Trump Now Reportedly Subjecting His Minions to Lie Detector Tests for Absolute Loyalty," published by 'Futurism' (Reporter Noor Al-Sibai), on April 5, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers."
GIST: "The head of a federal agency was reportedly given a polygraph test after an apparent news leak — even though such "lie detection" measures are considered junk science.
As Politico reports, a lie detector test was administered to Cameron Hamilton, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after details of a meeting he'd had with Homeland Security director Kirsti Noem were leaked to the press.
In a private March 25 meeting alongside Donald Trump adviser and accused sex pest Corey Lewandowski, Noem told Hamilton that she wanted to shrink FEMA and give it less federal grant money, instead moving its emergency management duties to states. Notably, she'd made similar comments during a televised Cabinet meeting just a day prior, when claiming to the world that the Trump administration is going to "eliminate FEMA."
Soon after that private tête-à-tête, details about Noem's plan were reported by Politico and CNN — and the Homeland Security head was demonstrably peeved. The department confirmed in a statement to Politico that the test had taken place — and said it had cleared the interim FEMA head.
"Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security," a HomeSec spokesperson told Politico. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment or status as a career civil servant — we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."
Stridency notwithstanding, however, it's hard to imagine anyone being prosecuted based on the results, because polygraph results themselves are generally not admissible in court due to the bunk nature of the "science" behind them.
As Harvard's Countway Library explains, polygraph tests were not invented to detect lies. Rather, they were created by British physician James Mackenzie at the turn of the 20th century to monitor a patient's heartbeat.
"Although the polygraph is known colloquially as a lie detector, that isn't exactly what it does," the library's explainer noted. "The machine detects changes in bodily function that indicate stress, which could be a result of lying. This includes functions like breathing, heart rate, and perspiration — all of which are also important baseline health measurements."
The American Psychological Association put it even more plainly way back in 2004: "so-called 'lie detection' involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions."
As the logic goes, one's heart rate increases when they're lying, leading to heavier breathing and perspiration. But those reactions can also be induced by the mere act of being questioned, which is why the state of New York ruled that polygraph tests are inadmissible court evidence in 1938 and nearly half the other states followed suit.
On the flip side, it's not that difficult — especially for people who lack a conscience or moral compass, which is otherwise known as sociopathy — to "trick" a polygraph by remaining calm when answering questions while hooked up to one, actual truthfullness of their claims notwithstanding.
For now, FEMA and the acting director who runs it seem to be safe. But Trump and his party have long had it out for the agency — and "passing" a shoddy lie detector test won't save Hamilton when his time comes."
The entire story can be read at:
https://futurism.com/trump-polygraph-lie-detector-leak
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
