As all are no doubt aware, Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) took and passed a polygraph "test" administered by recently retired FBI polygrapher Barry D. Colvert regarding the disappearance of Bureau of Prisons intern Chandra Levy. The D.C. Metro police rejected Condit's polygraph results and passed them on to the FBI for an opinion.

In today's (21 July 2001) New York Times, James Risen and Raymond Bonner report in an article titled "F.B.I. Dismisses Condit Polygraph Results" that the FBI issued a statement claiming, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." The FBI also told the public, "In addition, to render such an opinion at this point in the Chandra Levy disappearance investigation would hamper any future testing that might be conducted by the F.B.I. for the D.C. Metropolitan Police."

The FBI's statement is belied, however, by the recent history of the Wen Ho Lee investigation. On 23 December 1998, Wolfgang Vinskey, employed by Department of Energy contractor Wackenhut (clearly an "outside entity"), administered a polygraph "test" to Dr. Lee. He passed "with flying colors." But when the FBI later wanted to search Wen Ho Lee's home, Special Agent Michael W. Lowe, at para. 11 of an affidavit in support of a search warrant filed on 9 April 1999 (Lowe, 1999), swore that:

Quote:

...[f]ollowing the interview on December 23, 1998, DOE polygraphers administered a polygraph examination of LEE. The examiner's initial opinion was that LEE was not deceptive. However, subsequent quality control reviews of the results, by both DOE and by FBI Headquarters (HQ) resulted in an agreed finding that LEE was inconclusive, if not deceptive, when denying he ever committed espionage against the United States.

Clearly, the FBI does render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity (when it suits its purposes).

In addition, the FBI's claim that "to render such an opinion at this point in the Chandra Levy disappearance investigation would hamper any future testing that might be conducted by the F.B.I. for the D.C. Metropolitan Police" is clearly a disingenuous argument of convenience. Any FBI opinion on Condit's polygraph results could be kept confidential. Moreover, as the evidence of the Wen Ho Lee case shows, the FBI is not necessarily concerned that rendering opinions on polygraphs conducted by outside entities will somehow "hamper" future polygraph "testing."

The FBI's doubletalk regarding Rep. Condit's polygraph results may be related to the Bureau's need to maintain the illusion that its juju is good while outsiders' juju is bad.