A Bloomberg
article by Phil Mattingly and John Walcott cites a single, anonymous official source who claims that Petraeus was not polygraphed by the CIA in connection with his appointment as the Agency's director, because he had already been polygraphed in connection with his military service:
Quote:...
The sensitivity of an extramarital affair at the CIA stems from the potential for exposure to blackmail, according to one U.S. official, as well as the issue of a leader setting a bad example for subordinates. In Petraeus’s case, however, the affair did not jeopardize his high-level security clearances, because he already had passed the polygraph exam required for a Top Secret clearance as a senior military officer and didn’t need to retake it at the CIA, the official said.
...
Implicit in the above passage is the notion that the polygraph would have brought the affair to light. But that's not necessarily the case because 1) polygraphy has
no scientific basis and is highly unreliable and 2) as discussed above, senior officials at Petraeus's level don't fail polygraphs.
Note also that there is no indication in the article when Petraeus's military polygraph took place or precisely when he began his extramarital affair with Broadwell.
In addition, DoD uses a "counterintelligence scope" screening format, where the relevant questions are restricted to matters of counterintelligence concern such as unauthorized disclosure of classified information and contacts with a foreign government. The CIA, by contrast, uses a so-called "full scope" or "lifestyle" screening format, where relevant questions also cover drug use and criminal behavior. Adultery is punishable under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If the CIA has a policy of not polygraphing new employees who have recently taken a polygraph with DoD, that would be newsworthy. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, and an exception was made for David Petraeus, that too would be newsworthy.