Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test" (Read 513 times)
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5801
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Jul 8th, 2018 at 5:20pm
Print Post  


Peter Strzok


It has been reported that FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who was the chief of the Bureau's Counterespionage Section and who led the Bureau's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server for official business, failed to pass a polygraph screening "test," but nonetheless maintained his security clearance (which has since been revoked).

Strzok has been in the news in connection with an extramarital affair he conducted with FBI lawyer Lisa Page (who has since resigned) and some 50,000 text messages they exchanged on U.S. government devices, which included comments critical of then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about the polygraph matter in a 28 June 2018 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

Quote:
Let’s go back to something, though, that I asked, and you and I had a conversation about a few months ago. And this was Mr. Strzok’s issue -- I asked at the time did he have a security clearance. You said that you would check. You would assume he did at that point. It now appears that security clearance has been revoked. The concern I have again 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 has had very sensitive information. And on January 13, 2016, an individual from FBI’s Washington Field Office emailed Mr. Strzok and other employees that their polygraphs were out of, I think it was, “out of scope.” I asked you about that, and asked you if he had been polygraphed. You didn’t know at the time. It said the polygraph raised flags. Now, my question about this would be, you didn’t know about the polygraph at the time. We'll just assume now that it is out there, you do. Would the topic of the extramarital affair have come up in that polygraph, or possibility have come up in that polygraph, with Mr. Strzok, that could have put it out of scope?

...

Do you think it’s interesting you would continue to have someone in an investigation of such magnitude and sensitivity who basically had a failed polygraph or an out of scope polygraph test in which they had to then go back and re-answer or complete sensitive [sic] compartmentalized information request on this. Would they stay in that investigation? And if so were they treated differently because of his position or who he was?

...

Well let's just go back to process and personnel here. If they're out of scope, do you think it's interesting that you would continue to have someone in an investigation of such magnitude and sensitivity who basically had a failed polygraph, or an out-of-scope polygraph test, in which they had to then go back and re-answer or ask the complete sensitive compartmentalized information request on this? Would they stay in that investigation? And if so, were they treated differently? Because of his position or who he was?

...

Does it not strike you as strange, though, Mr. Wray, and I was not going here but now you’ve led me here. Does it not strike you as strange that someone who has had an issue with a polygraph, during the investigation which you have, in which sensitive informations were coming about, in which we’ve now seen the text and other things, it -- what would be -- so they could just flunk a polygraph and you just keep them on, if they could flunk questions, you keep them on sensitive information simply because that — not particularly Mr. Strzok here, I’m talking at overall policy. Is your policy just to keep people around that lie?


FBI Director Christopher Wray did not provide responsive answers to Rep. Collins' questions about FBI polygraph policy. Video of the exchange is available here:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4738037/peter-strzoks-scope-polygraph

The Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook does not include any such term as "out of scope" to describe polygraph results. Has anyone heard of such phraseology before? What precisely is that supposed to mean? And why would the FBI polygraph unit use that term instead of the standard polygraph outcomes of "significant response," "no significant response," or "inconclusive?"


  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
beat_the_system
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 7
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2018
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #1 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 3:14am
Print Post  
Never heard the term "out of scope".  It sounds like it means that the polygraph test was irrelevant, which makes me wonder why even give someone an irrelevant polygraph?  Seems like a waste of time.  Sounds like they wanted to keep the guy Strzok on board so they just ignored his spikey poly charts.

Funny how a heterosexual affair is frowned upon, but a homosexual lifestyle is accepted, supported, and even accommodated.  I know of couples with open marriages and their security clearance goes in jeopardy because of it.  However, the flaming faggots can run free. What a fucked up world we live in. 

For these IC agencies, you have to "pass" the polygraph to get hired.  If they think you are lying or hiding something, you will get rejected and your rejection letter will most likely say you are "unsuitable".  Once you are hired, it is very hard to fire someone for a "failed" polygraph alone, they need other evidence like a confession, which is the smoking gun.  Just having spikey polygraph charts from a current IC employee carries very little weight. 

I took the FBI polygraph before, lied my ass off, and passed.  It isn't hard once you know how it works.  I have been spreading the message on how to beat the poly myself to everyone I know.  I hope in the future everyone can beat the poly, and render it completely useless.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5801
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #2 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:27am
Print Post  
beat_the_system wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 3:14am:
Funny how a heterosexual affair is frowned upon, but a homosexual lifestyle is accepted, supported, and even accommodated.  I know of couples with open marriages and their security clearance goes in jeopardy because of it.  However, the flaming faggots can run free. What a fucked up world we live in.


I find the bigotry you've expressed here deplorable. Some people are gay. Get over it.

The notion that homosexuals enjoy some privileged status over heterosexuals in government service is risible. On the contrary, they have faced institutional discrimination for decades not only in the intelligence community but elsewhere in government and in society at large.

Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
beat_the_system
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 7
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2018
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #3 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:49am
Print Post  
]beat_the_system wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 3:14am:
George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:27am:
beat_the_system wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 3:14am:
Funny how a heterosexual affair is frowned upon, but a homosexual lifestyle is accepted, supported, and even accommodated.  I know of couples with open marriages and their security clearance goes in jeopardy because of it.  However, the flaming faggots can run free. What a fucked up world we live in.


I find the bigotry you've expressed here deplorable. Some people are gay. Get over it.

The notion that homosexuals enjoy some privileged status over heterosexuals in government service is risible. On the contrary, they have faced institutional discrimination for decades not only in the intelligence community but elsewhere in government and in society at large.

Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.



Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.


I don't care if people want to fuck mules.  I don't have to accept or support anything.  I don't understand why people don't keep their sex life to themselves.  I find homos disgusting and I find it deplorable that they are now a protected class.  Nobody should be given special privileges.  We can go on about the history of discrimination, but here in the 21st century we should not be protecting anyone.  Not to get off topic, but you can google stories about transgendered people winning athletic events because they are biologically male competing with females.  What is next?  If I say someone is too FAT to be a swimsuit model, is that discriminating too?  But I digress, back to the point...

The quoted point that I raised IS relevant to Strzok's polygraph.  They grilled him on having an affair.  My point is that we don't grill queers on being queer anymore, so why grill normal people for sleeping around?  It is irrelevant.  Anyone can be open about their sexual lifestyle and not subject to blackmail, so who gives a fuck.  Unless someone is caught giving away national secrets to foreigners, then nothing else in their life matters.  Leave Strzok's sexual life, and everyone's sexual life, out of the polygraph. 

I stand by everything I said here, quote me, buy me a t-shirt, give me a tattoo on my forehead.  Down with polygraphs, down with invading people's personal lives, and down with protected classes.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5801
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #4 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 10:04am
Print Post  
beat_the_system wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:49am:
The quoted point that I raised IS relevant to Strzok's polygraph.  They grilled him on having an affair.


There is no public evidence that Strzok's polygraph interrogation included any question about any extramarital affair. The FBI Personnel Security Polygraph Program is focused on counterintelligence matters and not so-called "lifestyle" questions:

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/fbi-psp-leaflet.shtml
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
John M.
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 136
Location: Tampa, Florida
Joined: May 3rd, 2017
Gender: Male
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #5 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 1:57pm
Print Post  
beat_the_system wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 3:14am:
Seems like a waste of time.  Sounds like they wanted to keep the guy Strzok on board so they just ignored his spikey poly charts.

It would only seem a waste of time for those who know the secret. It is in fact, a violation of National policy to take unfavorable actions against an existing employee based solely with their polygraph chart results, readings, interpretations, or whatever.

Has anyone ever actually seen the FBI's "internal" directives, instructions, or regulations on this policy?  Surely they exist, but they keep them hidden from the public. If this secret gets out, it will be a MAJOR blow to the polygraph and the security industries. Only applicants for NEWLY adjudicated clearances will be subjected to the abuse and humiliation. Periodic re-polygraph testing would be useless if everyone knew that there would be no punishment for "flunking" it.

DoD does have such a policy - DODI 5210.91. The ODNI has even provided clarification with SEAD-4. They both direct that no unfavorable actions shall be taken using only the polygraph "results". There must be some evidence of an act of misconduct to substantiate the suspicion of a wrong doing - as defined by the 13 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.

The secret is out and big polygraph is scared.


  

"The polygraph examination is a supplement to, not a substitute for, other methods of investigation.  No, unfavorable administrative action shall be taken based solely on its results."  ~ DODI 5210.91.
Back to top
Twitter  
IP Logged
 
Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 630
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #6 - Jul 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm
Print Post  
In my professional opinion, polygraph "testing" is a pseudo-scientific guessing game. In other words, a crap shoot.

In terms of accuracy, the results are close to flipping a coin.

But the polygraph, when artfully applied as a prop, is one hell of an investigative tool.

Bottom line:

Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.

Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre -- and applies to both the examiner and the examinee.



« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2018 at 1:57pm by Dan Mangan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John M.
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 136
Location: Tampa, Florida
Joined: May 3rd, 2017
Gender: Male
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #7 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 3:05am
Print Post  
Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm:
Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.

Or squeeze it too hard and you cause someone to suffer a nervous breakdown. Five interrogations in three years is abuse. They disabled retired me from federal service due to PTSD that I acquired from this abusive treatment. Now, I can't even get them to pay my doctors' bills.

Someone needs to be held accountable. Allowing this abuse to continue is unconscionable.
  

"The polygraph examination is a supplement to, not a substitute for, other methods of investigation.  No, unfavorable administrative action shall be taken based solely on its results."  ~ DODI 5210.91.
Back to top
Twitter  
IP Logged
 
Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Online



Posts: 254
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #8 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 11:36am
Print Post  
Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm:
In my professional opinion, polygraph "testing" is a pseudo-scientific guessing game. In other words, a crap shoot.

In terms of accuracy, the results are close to flipping a coin.

But the polygraph, when artfully applied as a prop, is one hell of an investigative tool.

Bottom line:

Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.

Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre -- and applies to both the examiner and the examiner.





Dan, you are quite correct.  The polygraph, when used as a "lie detector", is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - 50%. That was the terminology i used in my very first manual HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH written in 1979 and it was used by the US Supreme Court  in the Scheffer case where they refused to allow polygraph results into evidence.

And if the polygraph has any value at all - which is a dubious proposition – it is as a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into a confession – it is a great prop for an interrogator. But at such a terrible cost. Many of those confessions are false confessions which are obtained after hours and hours of grueling interrogation. And all too often the admissions supposedly made by the person being tested are exaggerated by the polygraph operator or made up out of whole cloth.

In short, the polygraph has no redeeming social value and should be banned forever. The thugs and charlatans who are perpetrating this evil fraud are doing so just so they can unjustly enrich themselves – and they don't give a damn how many people get hurt in the process.
  

It is time to put a stop to this government sponsored sadism perpetrated by those who use this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture called the 'lie detector'!  Education is the most effective weapon I have to finally put a stop to the abusive practice of polygraph 'testing'.  Help me by educating yourself and others.  My book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION" is available on Amazon in e-book or paperback - please get this book and send it to as many people as you can - it literally destroys the myth of "lie detection"!  Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John M.
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 136
Location: Tampa, Florida
Joined: May 3rd, 2017
Gender: Male
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #9 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 3:17pm
Print Post  
Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 11th, 2018 at 11:47pm:
Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre


Dan, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are a fellow crusader. I sincerely appreciate your candor and always value your input. I will be happy to work beside you in any capacity that I can.

The polygraph is a theater - a parlor trick as I've come to call it. The really insidious part, is that the polygraphist is in the business of finding liars. How can you justify your budget if you’re not finding liars? Especially, in the highly funded Offices of Security throughout the government. The Insider Threat Task Force that Obama created, is a DEEPSTATE asset and has become a threat to our individual liberties. They operate with impunity, and no one is willing or able to stop them – I believe either they’re afraid, or they’re paid off.  I’ve blown the whistle to all of the Inspectors General in my chain of command. I’ve contacted my Congressmen and my Senators. I’ve filed complaints with the Congressional Oversight Committees. How do you get someone to hear the damn whistle when you blow it?

You know, as do many other readers of this website - It's not difficult to take an unsuspecting individual and get them to "spike the charts". And, it doesn't matter who else "interprets" the charts, a spike is a spike.

For some innocent souls, it's impossible to control the fear response once they've been accused of, or suspected of, doing something wrong. In this case, telling a lie. These aren't calm and orderly accusations, they are the get-right-up-in-your-face kind of intimidating accusations. They threaten to take your job, your good name and who knows what else.

My story is no different than those of countless others. I started spilling my guts on every "dangerous to security" practices that we did in my office. Apparently, that wasn't what they we looking for, so they hauled me in again and again, over and over. They never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.

Before the last interrogation, I presented rational medical evidence that should have exempted me. Instead, they ignored my request to be excused, and claimed that they didn't know of any policy that would exempt me. After another TDY to DC, I was seen immediately afterward by two DIA psychologists who talked me down. I was sent home and told to resume treatment with my doctors in Tampa.

My doctors advised me apply for Workers' Compensation and Disability due to the inescapable and unavoidable stress involved with my duties and responsibilities. I was granted disability retirement based on my physician’s diagnoses, but senior officials lied to the DOL and said that five polygraphs in there years is not excessive and that all of their actions were legitimate, and not in violation of any other policies or regulations (I have the letter).

It wasn’t the number or the frequency of the examinations that I complained about, rather the fact that they were exacerbating my disorders.

FACT: According to DOD policy, individuals with mental, psychological or emotional conditions should be exempted from examinations.
  

"The polygraph examination is a supplement to, not a substitute for, other methods of investigation.  No, unfavorable administrative action shall be taken based solely on its results."  ~ DODI 5210.91.
Back to top
Twitter  
IP Logged
 
quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #10 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 7:16pm
Print Post  
[quote [/quote]
author=5E4C4040425F59485F2D0 link=1531070425/9#9 date=1531408632] I will be happy to work beside you in any capacity that I can.
[/quote]

And now that you have been neutralized as a national security threat, you have plenty of time on your hands to help out.

John M. wrote on Jul 12th, 2018 at 3:17pm:
How can you justify your budget if you’re not finding liars?


We found you!

John M. wrote on Jul 12th, 2018 at 3:17pm:
They never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.


That's called deception.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #11 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 7:18pm
Print Post  
John M. wrote on Jul 12th, 2018 at 3:17pm:
FACT: According to DOD policy, individuals with mental, psychological or emotional conditions should be exempted from examinations.

Oh Really?  In the real world, there is no such policy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5801
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #12 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 7:53pm
Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Jul 12th, 2018 at 7:16pm:
Quote:
John M. wrote Today at 3:17pm:
How can you justify your budget if you’re not finding liars?
 

We found you!


There is no evidence John M. lied regarding any of the relevant questions on his polygraph screening "test."

Quote:
Quote:
John M. wrote Today at 3:17pm:
They never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.



That's called deception.


There are a multiplicity of factors that could cause a person's polygraph tracings to "spike" that have nothing to do with deception.

It would appear that someone in the FBI's upper management understands this, because they have not been automatically suspending the security clearances of employees who don't pass the polygraph.

The time is now for the FBI to heed the National Research Council's advice and end polygraph screening. It's a pseudoscientific fraud that never caught a spy, is easily beaten by simple countermeasures that we have now documented you cannot detect, and it has caused needless, irreparable harm to the careers of countless honest applicants and employees.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5801
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #13 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 9:15pm
Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 8th, 2018 at 5:20pm:
The Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook does not include any such term as "out of scope" to describe polygraph results. Has anyone heard of such phraseology before? What precisely is that supposed to mean? And why would the FBI polygraph unit use that term instead of the standard polygraph outcomes of "significant response," "no significant response," or "inconclusive?"


In a House of Representatives joint committee hearing today, Peter Strzok explained that an employee's polygraph being "out of scope" means that the employee is overdue for a periodic polygraph examination. He affirmed that he has not failed any FBI polygraph examination.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Former FBI Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok Reportedly Failed to Pass Polygraph Screening "Test"
Reply #14 - Jul 12th, 2018 at 9:20pm
Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 12th, 2018 at 9:15pm:
In a House of Representatives joint committee hearing today, Peter Strzok explained that an employee's polygraph being "out of scope" means that the employee is overdue for a periodic polygraph examination. He affirmed that he has not failed any FBI polygraph examination.

"Out of scope" means the last polygraph taken has expired.  It has nothing to do with the scope of the relevant questions.  The DOD standard is 5 years, 7 for some agencies.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo