Just a week after the arrest of accused Chinese spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/08/18/accused-spy-alexander-yuk-ching-ma-evidently-beat-the-polygraph-to-penetrate-the-fbi/) in Honolulu, a former U.S. Army Special Forces officer and INSCOM and DIA contractor, Peter Rafael Dzibinski Debbins, has been arrested on a charge of spying for Russia. As explained on the blog, it appears that Debbins, too, beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/08/22/accused-russian-spy-peter-rafael-dzibinski-debbins-evidently-beat-the-polygraph-to-penetrate-the-nsa-dia/
It is very common to use fake "spies" using fake documents to make the other side think they are getting real information. That is all part of the game. When caught, these "spies" are given fake trials to convince the other side they got good information. After the fake trial, nobody ever knows or bothers to find out where the fake spy really is. Probably enjoying his retirement.
QuoteIt is very common to use fake "spies" using fake documents to make the other side think they are getting real information. That is all part of the game. When caught, these "spies" are given fake trials to convince the other side they got good information. After the fake trial, nobody ever knows or bothers to find out where the fake spy really is. Probably enjoying his retirement.
Examples?
This story from 7 years ago was complete facade. CIA officer's are not that stupid to get caught red-handed like Ryan Fogle did. Ryan Fogle, if that was his real name, was not a CIA officer. He was just a decoy, or bait, to create a diversion from the real spying that was going on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/europe/russia-detains-american-saying-he-is-cia-agent.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-detention/russia-says-cia-agent-caught-trying-to-recruit-spy-idUSBRE94D0DT20130514
No intelligence agency would be so stupid as to reveal to their target how they fooled them, for how long and in what ways. Spying, counter-spying, information and disinformation has only one purpose: to always have the upper hand if war should ever happen so to beat the enemy.
Court filings (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17468961/united-states-v-sealed/#entry-21) in a detention hearing for accused spy Peter Debbins provide considerable new detail on the crimes with which he has been charged. It appears that the government's primary (and perhaps only) source of information was Debbins himself. He evidently disclosed his contacts with Russian intelligence to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in July 2019.
In a letter (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.21.1.pdf#page=12) to the office of U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), Debbins wrote:
QuoteMy DIA clearance was suspended when I self-reported an incident back in July. DIA referred it to the FBI for investigation (standard protocol). I am in regular contact with the FBI investigator. He told me that their investigation should have no impact on how DIA determines my clearance. However, DIA doesn't want to proceed to make a determination, saying that they won't proceed until the FBI finalizes their investigation. To which the FBI investigator replies that their investigation should have no impact on DIA's process (he also said that they are pretty well done with my case).
Being in this status is preventing me from providing my expertise even at an unclassified level. I have a contracting job offer for an HHS (Health and Human Services) position that only requires a "Public Trust" (which doesn't involve any classified information), but can't even get that, while having a suspension on my records.
I am currently residing in the Washington DC area, so I can come to the Congressional Offices in DC.
Peter Debbins
On 11 July 2019, Debbins wrote out by hand and signed what amounts to a confession (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.21.1.pdf#page=5) to all the Espionage Act violations enumerated in the criminal complaint.
In addition, it appears that Debbins' work at Fort Meade, Maryland from January 2011 to March 2014 was not with the National Security Agency (NSA), but rather with the 902nd Military Intelligence Group (https://www.inscom.army.mil/MSC/902MIG.aspx), an Army counterintelligence unit that is also headquartered at Fort Meade.
In a resume (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.21.1.pdf#page=16), Debbins wrote:
Quote
01/2011-03/2014
Senior Russian Cyber Analyst, 902nd Military Intelligence Group
MISSION ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, Fort Meade, Maryland
Mr. Debbins provided direct analytical support to CI (counter-intelligence) cyberspace operations to include consultation and advice on linguistic, technical, and cultural issues impacting mission execution. He utilized Boolean searches, HOTR, M-3, ISM, JWICS, open source and classified databases to identify and assess cyberspace threats. His key accomplishments were:
- Presenting recommendations for courses of action which were adopted by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
- Establishing an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for training incoming linguists on collection protocol, report writing and presentation.
- Formulating solutions for agency and branch directors for Eurasian issues.
- Supporting decision making and special projects on intelligence integration issues to include the preparation, production, and coordination of written products and briefings for senior IC members, policy makers, military decisions [sic] makers, members of Congress, and other major stakeholders on intelligence integration efforts.
- Authoring 14 reports with "A" community evaluations resulting in the formation of community working groups to address the report issues.
- Representing his company in an online public relations and business services marketing.
No doubt, Debbins would have been required to pass a polygraph for this contractor position with the 902nd MI Group.
Note that in 2014, AntiPolygraph.org published documentation (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/10/18/confirmed-polygraph-countermeasure-case-documentation/) of a so-called "confirmed polygraph countermeasure case" involving the 902nd MI Group. That case did not support the polygraph community's claimed ability to detect sophisticated countermeasures.
Peter Debbins has pled guilty to espionage and is scheduled to be sentenced on 26 February 2021. Debbins plea agreement is available here (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.34.0_3.pdf) and a statement of facts to which he agreed is available here (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.35.0_3.pdf).
In reporting (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/peter-debbins-espionage-russia.html) on Debbins' guilty plea,
New York Times reporter Adam Goldman writes, among other things:
QuoteMr. Debbins, who held top security clearances, failed a polygraph, people familiar with the case said. That prompted the sensitive investigation and ultimately a criminal charge accusing him of violating the espionage statute.
Rachel Weiner of the
Washington Post also reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/green-beret-spy-russia/2020/11/18/a36d7e56-290e-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html) on Debbins' guilty plea and noted, among other things:
QuoteAccording to court records, during a security-clearance renewal last year, Debbins failed a polygraph test and subsequently confessed that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence for 15 years.
I didn't see any mention of Debbins having failed a polygraph in the court records (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17468961/united-states-v-debbins/), and in reply to an inquiry, Weiner clarified, "You are right. I should have said "According to prosecutors and in court records; the prosecutors have said it but I don't think it's actually in the public record. I imagine it will be by sentencing. I know he did in fact fail the polygraph in 2019; he spoke to friends about it."
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2020, 10:59 AM
QuoteMr. Debbins, who held top security clearances, failed a polygraph, people familiar with the case said. That prompted the sensitive investigation and ultimately a criminal charge accusing him of violating the espionage statute.
QuoteAccording to court records, during a security-clearance renewal last year, Debbins failed a polygraph test and subsequently confessed that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence for 15 years.
I didn't see any mention of Debbins having failed a polygraph in the court records (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17468961/united-states-v-debbins/), and in reply to an inquiry, Weiner clarified, "You are right. I should have said "According to prosecutors and in court records; the prosecutors have said it but I don't think it's actually in the public record. I imagine it will be by sentencing. I know he did in fact fail the polygraph in 2019; he spoke to friends about it."
George,
You and others on this board have stated many times that the polygraph has never caught a spy.
In this 2015 blog post (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/11/16/dia-to-require-all-contractors-with-sci-access-to-pass-polygraph/%3Cbr%20/%3E), you stated "the DIA polygraph screening program has never caught a spy. "
In this 2018 forum post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5586.msg43375#msg43375), you stated, "It's [the polygraph] a pseudoscientific fraud that never caught a spy."
In a 2013 forum post (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5136.msg37952#msg37952), even Doug Williams bragged that "there has never been even one spy ever caught by the polygraph!"
Would this case of Peter Rafael Dzibinski Debbins be the first case, on record, of a spy being caught by the polygraph? We should note, of course, that he ultimately made a confession to spying which was the nail in the coffin for him.
troll of truth,
The U.S. government has never publicly claimed that polygraph screening has caught a spy.
Retired CIA polygraph operator John F. Sullivan has plausibly claimed that it was a polygraph screening session that led to the identification of CIA clerical employee Sharon Marie Scranage as a spy for Ghana. See Chapter 9 of Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, Potomac Books, 2007. The CIA, however, has not publicly endorsed this claim, and it is possible that other factors were involved in Scranage's identification as a spy.
After the arrest of CIA spy Harold Nicholson, the FBI publicly suggested that it was the polygraph that tipped them off to his espionage. But in fact, it was a Russian intelligence officer spying for the United States, Alexander Zaporozhsky, whose assistance led to Nicholson's arrest. See investigative reporter Bryan Denson's book, The Spy's Son: The True Story of the Highest-Ranking CIA Officer Ever Convicted of Espionage and the Son He Trained to Spy for Russia, Scribe Publications, 2015. The public suggestion that it was the polygraph that caught Nicholson was a likely subterfuge to misdirect Russian counterintelligence away from Zaporozhsky.
In the Debbins case, no government official has stated on the record that it is the polygraph that identified him as a Russian spy. If such a claim is made, it would be a first in the U.S. government's more than seven decades of polygraph screening.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 20, 2020, 02:12 AM
In the Debbins case, no government official has stated on the record that it is the polygraph that identified him as a Russian spy. If such a claim is made, it would be a first in the U.S. government's more than seven decades of polygraph screening.
When you put it like that, I don't expect any U.S. government official to ever mention what the polygraph did, because those that work in the polygraph industry are told not to discuss it as it would open up the polygraph to exploitation. The articles says that Peter Debbins failed a polygraph test and subsequently confessed that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence for 15 years. Sounds like the polygraph caught him, or it helped.
There have been several cases of people taking polygraphs and then later being convicted of espionage. Glenn Shriver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Duffie_Shriver) is one example, and he was still a student. Kun Shan Chun (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-fbi-employee-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-24-months-prison-acting-agent) was an FBI employee. Here is a list of a few others (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/spy/spies/four.html).
I think what happens is that these spies are already under investigation, and they are presented with evidence, possibly circumstantial evidence, of their espionage activities during or after the polygraph. If that happens, the polygraph can be used to tell the spy that "we know you are hiding something, we know that you are a spy." The spy believes the polygraph works and it can read his or her mind, the spy digests all the circumstantial evidence, and then confesses. Boom. The polygraph machine is a hero!
That may be the best the polygraph can do. The machine isn't going to spit out a result saying the person is a spy and should be immediately convicted. If the polygraph is leading these people to espionage confessions, then can't we say that the polygraph caught a spy?
When I speak of a spy being "caught" by polygraph screening, I mean someone who was not previously under suspicion coming under suspicion as a result of a polygraph "test" and eventually being convicted of a violation of the Espionage Act.
I see no policy consideration that would prevent the U.S. government from publicly stating that a spy had been caught by the polygraph if such a thing has ever happened. I don't understand on what basis you believe that discussing it would "open up the polygraph to exploitation."
In the case of Glenn Shriver, it seems clear that he had been identified as a Chinese agent prior to his CIA pre-employment polygraph, and that he did not confess to his polygraph operator. I am not aware of any information that the polygraph had anything to do with Kun Shan Chun's identification as an agent for China, or with his confession.
As for the role of the polygraph in the detection of Peter Debbins' espionage, considering the paucity of publicly available evidence, I think it is prudent to reserve judgment.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 20, 2020, 04:14 AM
I see no policy consideration that would prevent the U.S. government from publicly stating that a spy had been caught by the polygraph if such a thing has ever happened. I don't understand on what basis you believe that discussing it would "open up the polygraph to exploitation."
I do. Let me explain. I deduced from this website that the easiest way a person can fail a polygraph is from making a confession or disqualifying admission. Here is a hypothetical public interview with a polygrapher:
News Reporter: How did you catch John Doe spying?
Polygrapher: During his polygraph, we asked him "Have you ever given classified information to someone not authorized to receive it?" He showed a response on his charts to that question, so we probed further.
News Reporter: Please explain.
Polygrapher: We asked more profound questions about why he reacted to the question about leaking classified information. He soon confessed to giving classified information to Planet Mars.
News Reporter: So it was only after his confession that you were able to arrest him?
Polygrapher: Yes.
News Reporter: So if he never confessed, he would have likely gotten away with the crime?
Polygrapher: Uhhh. . . [silence]I think that once people know that confessions are what guarantees a polygraph fail, then people will be less likely to make confessions, thus, exploiting the weakness of the polygraph.
These IC polygraphs just ask a few general questions that cover everything, mostly crime, including drugs and espionage. The polygraphers usually don't know much except what is on applicants' SF86 forms if they are taking pre-employment polys, or some preliminary investigation in other cases. I'm willing to bet that suspects make confessions on the poly that the polygrapher would have never discovered otherwise.
My point in all of my postings is that the polygraph is used as part of investigations and usually is the fatal blow to applicants and spies. I'm sure spies have been arrested after their polygraph confession gave enough evidence for the arrest. However, the U.S. government will never publicly say this because then spies will learn to avoid confessing.
Quote from: troll_of_truth on Nov 20, 2020, 05:14 AMHowever, the U.S. government will never publicly say this because then spies will learn to avoid confessing.
I expect most spies already know that confessing is a bad idea.
If a failed polygraph "test" were ever the trigger for an espionage investigation that culminated in a conviction, nothing would prevent the U.S. government from publicly stating so, and it would be under no obligation to answer questions from journalists about it that it did not want to answer.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 20, 2020, 05:33 AMQuote from: troll_of_truth on Nov 20, 2020, 05:14 AMHowever, the U.S. government will never publicly say this because then spies will learn to avoid confessing.
I expect most spies already know that confessing is a bad idea.
Agreed. ;D Though in these polygraph/interrogation sessions, you never know what the polygrapher or LE is threatening the subject with to make him or her confess.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 20, 2020, 05:33 AM
If a failed polygraph "test" were ever the trigger for an espionage investigation that culminated in a conviction, nothing would prevent the U.S. government from publicly stating so, and it would be under no obligation to answer questions from journalists about it that it did not want to answer.
I presume this is what happened in this Peter Debbins case! However, you are right, let's reserve judgement until all the facts come out, if they all come out.
Peter Debbins' sentencing hearing, which was to be held on 26 February 2021, has been rescheduled to 16 April 2021 at 09:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 800 before District Judge Claude M. Hilton. A pre-sentence investigation report filed in January 2021 remains under seal.
Confessed Russian spy Peter Rafael Dzibinski Debbins' sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 AM today (16 April 2021) on Friday, 14 May 2021 in Room 800 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria. Under General Order No. 2020-11 (https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/General%20Order%202020-11.pdf), the court has authorized public participation via toll-free telephonic access. Note that creating audio recordings is prohibited (see p. 6 of the order).
According to the Listing of Numbers for Public Teleconference Access (https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/Remote%20Teleconference%20Listing%20100120.pdf), the telephone number for proceedings before Judge Claude M. Hilton, who will be presiding over Debbins' sentencing hearing, is 1-888-363-4735 and the access code is 8281778.
As noted previously in this message thread, it was suggested in a previous hearing that Debbins' espionage came to light in the aftermath of a polygraph examination. Documentation of that has not been publicly released, although the docket includes a sealed transcript from proceedings held on 18 November 2020 and a sealed presentence investigation report.
AntiPolygraph.org's previous reporting on the Debbins case, including evidence that he beat the polygraph to penetrate the U.S. Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is available here:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/08/22/accused-russian-spy-peter-rafael-dzibinski-debbins-evidently-beat-the-polygraph-to-penetrate-inscom-and-the-dia/
I am happy to speak with any journalist covering the Debbins case who seeks comment on its polygraph-related aspects.
I never knew we could dial into a sentencing hearing! They should make it a podcast or live video stream. I will be watching this. I still think Debbins's case, and some of the other cases I mentioned in this thread, are examples of a suspect making his or her final confession during the polygraph. Thus, the polygraph is the final tool that caught a spy. I still believe the government does not want people to know that a confession is the key to a polygrapher's victory. Anyway, let's see what sentence Debbins receives.
Earlier this year in February 2021, the Washington, D.C. International Spy Museum had this online event called "Spies & Spymasters Happy Hour", which included an NSA polygrapher named Thomas Mauriello. What is interesting is that the host of the event, Mark Zaid, says that federal polygraphers are fishing and trying to get subjects to make an adverse admission. All the panelists nodded in agreement. However, Thomas Mauriello rebuked Zaid's assessment of the polygraph, meaning Zaid was speaking the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9oA5gkd_w&t=1h12m40s
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 16, 2021, 04:51 AMAntiPolygraph.org's previous reporting on the Debbins case, including evidence that he beat the polygraph to penetrate the U.S. Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is available here:
George, the above statement you made is based on speculation, not evidence. Your blog from last August states:
"Debbins' resume, made public on 27 August 2020 (after this article was first published), shows that this contract work was for the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, a counterintelligence unit falling under the U.S. Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) and headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland. This position, for which Debbins needed a TS/SCI clearance, would have required polygraph screening."
This statement is not accurate. Needing a TS/SCI in the Army does NOT require a polygraph exam. Debbins would not have required one unless he was being read on to a SAP that specifically requires one. You are merely assuming he would have needed one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/green-beret-spy-russia/2020/11/18/a36d7e56-290e-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html
This November 2020 Washington Post article says, "Debbins failed a polygraph test and subsequently confessed that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence for 15 years."
Does this prove that the polygraph caught Debbins? Also, if Debbins took a polygraph for his job at anytime in the past 15 years, then he must have beaten the polygraph to keep his job and continue his espionage activities.
Quote from: troll_of_truth on Apr 17, 2021, 12:16 PMAlso, if Debbins took a polygraph for his job at anytime in the past 15 years, then he must have beaten the polygraph to keep his job and continue his espionage activities.
That is "if"; "if" is not evidence, it is speculation. "he must have beaten the polygraph" is also speculation, not evidence.
quickfix,
It is true that not all Army positions that require a TS/SCI clearance also require polygraph screening. However, according to Debbins' resumé (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.21.1.pdf#page=16), his job at the 902nd was as an analyst in support of counterintelligence cyber operations. This kind of work typically requires polygraph screening.
But even if Debbins was not required to pass a polygraph in connection with his contract work for the 902nd, he would certainly have had to pass one in connection with his subsequent contract work for DIA.
If you know otherwise, please explain.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 17, 2021, 12:50 PMThis kind of work typically requires polygraph screening.
again, this is speculation. "Typically" is not evidence.
Your blog states your "evidence" that Debbins beat a DIA and INSCOM polygraph What is your evidence?
quickfix,
The evidence that Debbins beat the polygraph in connection with his DoD employment is circumstantial, but strong.
that's what I thought you'd say. "Circumstantial" is not evidence. It is speculative and makes assumptions.
A DIA Polygraph report is evidence. An INSCOM polygraph report is evidence. Polygraph charts are evidence. A confession that countermeasures were used is evidence. You have none of these.
When you pass off speculation as evidence, all you do is lose credibility.
Hey quickfix,
You seem to be in denial that Debbins beat a polygraph. Everyone who works at DIA has to take a polygraph. (see the faq "Do I need to take a polygraph test?") (https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/dia/diafaq.html) Therefore, if Debbins worked at DIA, even as a contractor because contractors undergo the same clearance process as their government officers, he took a polygraph. I found this article (https://bannedfromintel.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/u-s-fed-employee-criminals-all-passed-polys/) with proof of several other federal criminals who passed polygraphs as well. The government is not going to publish a full unredacted polygraph report. It is hard enough trying to get this through FOIA/PA. The fact is, Debbins is one of many polygraph-passing federal criminals. The polygraph is a joke.
Quote from: troll_of_truth on Apr 17, 2021, 09:37 PMThe fact is, Debbins is one of many polygraph-passing federal criminals.
Where is your proof? Show the evidence.
I meant real proof, not a blog from a whining sniveling wannabe who never was.
Quote from: troll_of_truth on Apr 18, 2021, 10:18 PMWe, the antipolygraph community, can make deductions from news articles, court documents, and other information we find online. We can surmise that people have passed the polygraph while hiding criminal activity.
That's the very definition of speculation. Thank you, you just proved my point.
Quote from: quickfix on Apr 19, 2021, 06:57 AMQuote from: troll_of_truth on Apr 18, 2021, 10:18 PMWe, the antipolygraph community, can make deductions from news articles, court documents, and other information we find online. We can surmise that people have passed the polygraph while hiding criminal activity.
That's the very definition of speculation. Thank you, you just proved my point.
Actually, I think I proved my own point, quickfix. If the U.S. government will not publicly provide the proof that you seek, what would appease your hubris as the most definitive proof? Tell us exactly what you want to see, aside from U.S. government statements which will not occur.
I did not ask for proof from the government. I asked for proof from George, proof that Debbins took and passed a polygraph given by either INSCOM or DIA to substantiate his claim of "another catastrophic failure of polygraph screening". He already admitted that he has nothing more than "strong circumstantial" evidence, which is not evidence, but speculation/conjecture.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 19, 2021, 02:20 PMI did not ask for proof from the government. I asked for proof from George, proof that Debbins took and passed a polygraph given by either INSCOM or DIA to substantiate his claim of "another catastrophic failure of polygraph screening". He already admitted that he has nothing more than "strong circumstantial" evidence, which is not evidence, but speculation/conjecture.
George has given proof. If a polygraph is required for those jobs, and Debbins worked those jobs, then he took a polygraph. You still didn't answer my question. If you do not accept deductive reasoning from news articles and official court documents as proof, and the U.S. government will not release an official statement, then what type of proof will you accept?
As of today, Saturday, 8 May 2021, Peter Debbins' sentencing hearing remains scheduled for Friday, 14 May 2021 at 9:00 AM before Judge Claude Hilton in Room 800 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria:
https://www.vaedonline.uscourts.gov/schedules/w-weeklyhilton.html
On Friday, 7 May 2021, the prosecution filed a 30-page sentencing memorandum (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.41.0.pdf) that at p. 15 briefly mentions a polygraph examination that Debbins underwent in July 2019:
QuoteD. Procedural History
As of July 2019, Debbins was working for a DIA contractor overseas. See Tomlinson Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A, ¶ 22. That month, as part of his security clearance reinvestigation, he returned to the United States to take a polygraph examination, which he failed.5 See Ex. A, ¶ 23. After Debbins failed the polygraph, he participated in a series of voluntary interviews with FBI agents from July 2019 to December 2019. See id. ¶ 24. During these interviews, Debbins detailed his cooperation with the Russian intelligence agents from 1996 until 2010. See id. Debbins has claimed that his conspiracy with the Russian intelligence agents did not continue past January 2011. See id. 25; SOF ¶ 1.
5. The government includes the information that Debbins failed his polygraph examination solely to provide the context leading to the FBI interviews—not as a factor to be considered in determining Debbins' sentence.
The referenced Exhibit A (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.41.1.pdf) was filed under seal.
It seems unusual to me that Debbins would have traveled to the United States for any routine polygraph screening. That's not a cost-effective way of polygraphing personnel assigned to a large overseas facility in a stable and secure allied country (as Debbins was). A more economical approach would be to send a polygraph operator on TDY to polygraph multiple personnel on-site. It is also unusual for a failed polygraph to result in questioning by the FBI.
Peter Debbins' Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.47.0.pdf) is now publicly available. It includes a psychiatric assessment by Dr. David L. Charney (https://noir4usa.org/about/david-l-charney-md/) that has been redacted.
It also includes a 5-page letter (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.47.1.pdf) dated 2 February 2021 from Debbins to Judge Claude M. Hilton seeking clemency. In it, Debbins mentions that he was polygraphed by the FBI in 2019, writing at pp. 3-4:
QuoteI didn't confront the mental pathologies that plagued me and my feelings against the Kremlin, and because of that, I made another great mistake in 2014. I embraced an occult belief system in which I believed I was my own God, and thought I could conform to my will. My recitations and visualization rituals did not transform reality but created delusions. I created an imaginary advisory council of current and historical figures to guide and assist me. Instead of changing Russia. I descended into insanity unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and from 2014 until my arrest, I experienced the following:
• Suffered from insomnia which gave me 3 hours of sleep a night
• Had bizarre dreams, night terrors, and hallucinations of meeting with the GRU. I even thought they were in my house and I removed the smoke detectors believing they were surveillance devices.
• Crossed moral boundaries
• Was always in a manic state of high energy
• My mind would race constantly
• Conducted trances to enter into the "subconscious universe"
• Believed I could communicate via telepathy and dreams
• Excessively used caffeine, alcohol, and sleeping medication
• Believed in signs and omens
• Was paranoid of the GRU and loved ones. I thought my wife and daughter were working for the GRU, which may explain why I didn't pass the 2019 FBI polygraph. The FBI didn't believe me when I told them that I had no post-2010 contacts
• Believed the souls of my aunts and uncles who perished from Stalin's famines were living through me
• Created fantasies of past misdeeds needing atonement
• Had delusions of becoming a double agent
• As a CI professional, I was becoming that what I gazed upon and demonized myself as having affinity to Russia.
With all of this psychological and physiological torture, I simply wanted to unload these racing thoughts to pass my polygraph, without considering the legal ramifications. I made self-destructive and self-incriminating statements as a subconscious suicide attempt of a tormented soul, whose life was ruined by this de-humanizing Kremlin regime.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 10, 2021, 08:51 PMDoes this statement by Debbins prove that his admissions during the polygraph are what led to him being caught?
No, it doesn't
prove that such is the case. But it suggests it.
Yesterday, Tuesday, 11 May 2021, the government filed a Response (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.53.0.pdf) to Debbins' Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing. The government's Response includes as Exhibit A an "Unclassified Declaration of FBI Special Agent Jeffrey B. Parsons." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.53.1.pdf) Parsons was present for all of the FBI's interviews of Debbins, and among other things, he discusses the polygraph examination that the FBI conducted on Debbins:
QuoteC. The Polygraph Administered by the FBI in October 2019
14. In Debbins's letter to the court dated February 2, 2021, he states that, in the period between 2014 and his arrest, he "[w]as paranoid of the GRU and loved ones." Debbins explains, "I thought my wife and daughter were working for the GRU, which may explain why I didn't pass the 2019 FBI polygraph. The FBI didn't believe me when I told them that I had no post-2010 contacts."
15. For the background of the Court, the FBI began investigating Debbins after he failed a polygraph as part of his security clearance reinvestigation in early July 2019. Between July 2019 and December 2019, the FBI interviewed Debbins on multiple occasions about his cooperation and contacts with Russian intelligence agents. During these interviews, Debbins claimed that he stopped cooperating with the Russian intelligence agents after 2010. At the FBI's request, Debbins agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding whether he had any communication with the GRU or any other branch of Russian intelligence after 2010.
16. The FBI administered the polygraph to Debbins on October 23, 2019. Before the polygraph, Debbins signed two forms—a "Consent to Interview with Polygraph" and an "Advice of Rights." During the examination, the polygrapher asked Debbins whether he had any contact with Russian intelligence or the GRU since 2011. Debbins failed the polygraph.
17. During the interview immediately following the failed polygraph, Debbins continued denying any contact with the GRU since 2011. He offered a number of explanations as to his inability to pass. However, Debbins did not mention any paranoia that his wife and daughter were working for the GRU as a possible explanation. In fact, Debbins explicitly told the FBI that his wife was not involved with the Russian intelligence service during a separate interview.
At today's sentencing hearing, Judge Claude M. Hilton sentenced Peter Debbins to 188 months (15 years and 8 months) in prison to be followed by five years of supervised release. 188 months is the low end of the 188-235 months indicated by the Sentencing Guidelines, and is less than the 17 years sought by the prosecution.
Polygraphy was not mentioned during the hearing.
Christopher Burgess from Clearancejobs.com gave a speech recently, it is on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/tF_QHygu8ps
At around the 18:30 mark, he starts talking about Peter Debbins.
At 21:34, he says that Debbins "passed multiple polygraphs."
Then Burgess says that Debbins had a bad polygraph one day, after previously passing several polygraphs, and Debbins "broke" and wrote a confession.
There you have it.
nobody is here,
Thank you for sharing Christopher Burgess' remarks.
It's noteworthy, I think, that since his guilty plea, Peter Debbins has withdrawn his confession and attempted to appeal. Meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons is keeping him under exceptionally harsh terms of confinement.
After Debbins was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment in May 2021, I was interested to know what became of him and where he was being incarcerated. Perplexingly, a search of the federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator (https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/) web page for Peter Debbins for a long time showed zero results. I wondered whether perhaps his location was being concealed for some political reason, and whether he was perhaps being considered for a prisoner exchange with Russia.
This seems not to have been the case. A review of the docket in Debbins' case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17468961/united-states-v-debbins/) shows that shortly after sentencing, in a letter sent from the Alexandria City Detention Center, he attempted to withdraw (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.66.0.pdf) his guilty plea and filed a notice of appeal (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.67.0.pdf) (later withdrawn).
By January 2022, Debbins was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky, from where on 16 July 2022 he filed a "Request for a Court-Appointed Attorney to Assist with 2255 Motion" (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.79.0.pdf) (a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a prison sentence) in which he wrote, among other things, (hand printed in all caps):
Quote...I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SECURE AN ATTORNEY DUE TO THE FACT THAT SINCE JANUARY 27, 2022 I HAVE BEEN UNDER SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES (SAM) PER THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO THE BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP). THE SAM HAS PLACED ME IN ISOLATION AND SEVERELY RESTRICTED MY COMMUNICATIONS AND ABILITY TO PREPARE MY 2255 MOTION, [unclear] MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
DURING THE PAST SIX MONHS I HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ONLY FOUR PHONE CALLS, AND ONLY ONE WAS WITH A POTENTIAL ATTORNEY, WHO HAD GREAT DIFFICULTY WITH OVER A TWO MONTH DELAY IN OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME. I AM NOT ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER POTENTIAL ATTORNEYS....
On 4 August 2022, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed a response in opposition (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.81.0_1.pdf) to Debbins' motion that included two exhibits that were filed under seal. (With the exception of the indictment, none of the documents filed under seal in this case have been unsealed.)
On 27 December 2022, Debbins wrote to the court, informing it of his new address, the United States Prison, Florence ADMAX. He gave his address as:
QuotePETER DEBBINS
05852509
ADX-FLORENCE, CONTROL UNIT
FLORENCE, COLORADO
This prison is generally recognized as the most restrictive in the federal prison system. It is not clear why Debbins has been incarcerated here.
On 25 August 2022, Debbins filed a motion to vacate (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.90.0.pdf) his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that he "was suffering from untreated mental illness and had insufficient knowledge of the law." Debbins also argued that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that his confession was coerced and involuntary. Debbins' main arguments are included in a 19-page hand-written addendum (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.90.2.pdf), in which he writes, among other things (again in all caps):
QuoteCOUNSEL FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS MY STATEMENTS. WITHOUT THE STATEMENT MADE TO THE FBI THERE ARE NO GROUNDS AGAINST ME. GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DID NOT MAKE THE CLAIMS KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY. A COMBINATION OF THE PRESSURES OF MY UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS, ECONOMIC COERCION, THE FBI'S POWER OF AUTHORITY, AND A WORKPLACE POLYGRAPH CREATED THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH MY FREE WILL WAS OVERBORNE AND I WAS COERCED INTO MAKING AN INVOLUNTARY AND FALSE CONFESSION.
HOW DID I MAKE THESE CLAIMS? IN JULY 2019 I HAD TO TAKE A PERIODIC POLYGRAPH WITH MY CONTRACT CLIENT, THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA). THIS WAS NECESSARY FOR MY CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT, WHICH NEGATED MY FREE WILL. THE POLYGRAPH IS IN AND OF ITSELF A STRESS INDUCING EXERCISE. I WANTED TO PASS THE POLYGRAPH BUT WAS SUFFERING MENTAL ILLNESS AND BELIEVED THAT TELLING MY DELUSIONAL CLAIMS WOULD CALM ME, ALLOWING ME TO PASS—CLEARLY SHOWING A LACK OF KNOWINGNESS.
HOW DID THESE DELUSIONS COME ABOUT? WHEN ONE IS SUFFERING UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS REASON AND LOGIC ARE SEVERELY ATTENUATED. MY BEST UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PSYCHOSIS CAUSED ME TO BELIEVE THAT I BETRAYED MY FAITH, OUR COUNTRY, MY MEN, AND MY MISSION, AND DEPRESSION CAUSED ME TO OBSESS OVER THESE DELUSIONS AND OTHER IMAGINED FAILINGS. HOWEVER, PSYCHOSIS AND DEPRESSION DID NOT COMPEL ME TO CONFESS. I WAS COMPELLED BY A WORKPLACE POLYGRAPH. MENTAL ILLNESS WITH GOVERNMENT COERCION NEGATED MY KNOWLEDGE AND FREE WILL RENDERING MY CONFESSION AS INVOLUNTARY.
MY PSYCHOSIS WHICH DRAMATICALLY WORSENED AFTER 2014 CAUSED OBSCURE MEMORIES OF DRUNKEN MEETINGS WITH INNOCULOUS [sic] RUSSIANS TO MORPH INTO ENCOUNTERS WITH RISS [Russia's intelligence and security services] IN WHICH I TOLD NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION AND MADE DECLARATIONS OF LOYALTY TO THE RUSSIAN STATE. WHEN YOU HAVE A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE YOUR MIND PLAYS TRICKS ON YOU. MY UNHEALTHY MIND WAS FERTILE GROUNDS FOR SUCH DELUSIONS TO EMERGE BECAUSE I TRAVELED EXTENSIVELY IN RUSSIA AND ENGAGED IN NUMEROUS SOCIAL INTERACTIONS, AND ACQUIRED VAST KNOWLEDGE OF INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS SINCE 2011.
THE DIA WAS ACTING AS A PRIVATE PARTY AS AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND IT DIRECTED ME TO SPEAK WITH THE FBI. I HAD THE ADDED COERCION OF BELIEVING I WAS UNDER ORDERS TO PROVIDE THE CLAIMS TO THE FBI. THE DIA CONTACTED THE FBI AND THE FBI CAME TO THE DIA OFFICES TO INTERROGATE ME, CAUSING ME TO BELIEVE THE FBI AND THE DIA WERE WORKING IN TANDEM. THE DIA AGENT TOLD ME NOT TO HIDE ANYTHING SUCH AS EMAILS AND I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THIS TO MEAN NOT TO WITHHOLD ANY CLAIMS FROM THE FBI. SINCE I BELIEVED THAT THE DIA SHARED MY CLAIMS WITH THE FBI I FELT COERCED INTO REPEATING THOSE CLAIMS TO THE FBI. I FEARED THAT IF MY CLAIMS DID NOT MATCH THAN [sic] THE FBI WOULD MAKE MY LIFE DIFFICULT TO INCLUDE POSSIBLE ARREST OR NEGATIVELY REPORTING TO THE DIA HINDERING MY CLEARANCE—A FORM OF ECONOMIC COERCION. DURING THESE INTERROGATIONS THE FBI DID NOT READ ME THE MIRANDA WARNING SO I WAS UNKNOWING OF THE LEGAL SITUATION I WAS IN. THE FBI TOLD ME THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT RISS ACTIVITIES WERE. SINCE BOTH DIA AND FBI HAVE A COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE MISSION I BELIEVED THE INTERROGATIONS WERE JOINT. IN FACT DURING ONE OF THE INTERROGATIONS I TOLD THE FBI TO READ THE WRITTEN CLAIMS I GAVE TO THE DIA SINCE IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO REMEMBER WHAT I ORIGINALLY TOLD THE DIA.
COUNSEL INCORRECTLY TOLD ME THAT MY STATEMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY SINCE I WASN'T IN CUSTODY.
THE ONLY TIME THE FBI READ ME A MIRANDA WARNING WAS AT THE OCTOBER 2019 FBI POLYGRAPH WHICH I BELIEVE DID NOT PRODUCE INCULPATORY CLAIMS. THE POLYGRAPH ASSESSED IF I WAS CREDIBLE WHEN I CLAIMED NO POST-2011 RISS CONTACT. THIS POLYGRAPH WAS TAKEN INVOLUNTARILY.
SINCE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DIA REQUIRED THE FBI INVESTIGATION FOR MY CLEARANCE HENCE MY EMPLOYMENT I WAS COERCED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE FBI, SO I ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION AND AGREED TO EVERY REQUEST. I FEARED THAT FAILURE TO FULLY COOPERATE WOULD RESULT IN NEGATIVE ACTION. THE FBI QUICKLY INFORMED THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) HOME OFFICE OF MY CASE AND THE HOME OFFICE EXECUTED A SEARCH WARRANT OF MY HOUSEHOLD AND MADE THREATENING STATEMENT [sic] TO MY WIFE. THE UK HOME OFFICE BARRED MY TRAVEL TO THE UK SO I COULD NOT BE WITH MY FAMILY. THE FBI ASKED ME TO SURRENDER MY PASSPORTS AND DELAYED IN RETURNING THEM TO ME WHEN I ASKED FOR THEM. UNDER THIS COERCION WITH MY MENTAL ILLNESS I WAS COMPELLED TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION, AGREE TO ANY REQUEST, AND SHARE MY CLAIMS.
In short, Debbins is claiming that the admissions he made to having committed espionage on behalf of Russia are untrue, that he was not mentally competent at the time he pled guilty, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
Ultimately, on 13 April 2023, Judge Claude M. Hilton, who presided over Debbins' trial and plea agreement, ruled against Debbins (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018/gov.uscourts.vaed.484018.111.0.pdf) in his 2255 motion.
Wow. This is sad. These polygraphers and law enforcement pigs will do ANYTHING to get a confession out of somebody. I guess catching a "Russian spy" sounds good and sexy and any law enforcement would love to have that fame.
Sadly, once a person confesses, even if the confession is coerced, it is hard for the person to claim innocence. I assume the mental distress argument has been used many times by defendants. How often does it work, for acquittals and appeals?
Now they have locked him away and denied him access to lawyers and outside communication?! Is this even legal?
Didn't the late polygraph critic Doug Williams also get sent to the same prison in Florence, CO, or a different one?
However, at the same time, most spies when caught are told to deny everything up until the bloody end. Even Chinese spy Chaoqun Ji, who was convicted then released on a "spy swap" in November 2024, denied being a spy. (https://abc7chicago.com/post/convicted-ex-chicago-illinois-institute-technology-college-student-chaoqun-ji-part-us-china-spy-swap/15596442/)
What is the truth? Was Debbins really coerced into a false confession? Or were the polygraphers and FBI just that darn good at interrogating him that they squeezed the truth out of him and now Debbins will try any argument to renege and get out of that harsh prison?
We will never know.