(07-14-2016 12:26 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  ‘Gag Order’: FBI Confirms Special Secrecy Agreements For Agents In Clinton Email Probe

Update to this story. They really don't want anyone to know what the FBI agents actually thought.

Quote:The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy — and subject to lie detector tests — in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."

A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.

"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "….I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...probe.html

No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

(07-14-2016 09:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:25 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 04:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I doubt that the secret service agents were present when Clinton and Lynch spoke privately.

So what. They still would likely know that they met. If it's a nefarious meeting, you wouldn't want anyone to know, would you?

Just once I'd like you to admit that something just doesn't seem right with the Clintons. If you wonder why people give you a hard time you need to take a long, unbiased look at the party you support. It's not all peaches and cream. And yes, the GOP sucks.

I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the Democratic Party. It's full mostly of spineless wimps. And I've admitted plenty about the Clinton's over the years...you've likely missed it or simply ignored it. But if you're looking for me to be on board with the ridiculous "Clinton Body Count" you're delusional at best.

Maybe I have missed it but lately it just seems like you defend the Dems at all costs. I think the Corrine Brown thread is the first time I've seen you post a thread that would be a negative for that party. If I'm way off, I apologize but I'm not sure I've noticed you support a Republican other than the time you said you kind of liked Kasich and Rand Paul. That's even a head scratcher for me as they don't seem to align with the views that you present here.

(07-14-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:26 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  ‘Gag Order’: FBI Confirms Special Secrecy Agreements For Agents In Clinton Email Probe

Update to this story. They really don't want anyone to know what the FBI agents actually thought.

Quote:The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy — and subject to lie detector tests — in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."

A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.

"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "….I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...probe.html

No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thats not what you said in your earlier posts, you denied this ever happening at all and even called out the source...

(07-14-2016 09:38 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:26 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  ‘Gag Order’: FBI Confirms Special Secrecy Agreements For Agents In Clinton Email Probe

Update to this story. They really don't want anyone to know what the FBI agents actually thought.

Quote:The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy — and subject to lie detector tests — in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."

A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.

"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "….I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...probe.html

No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thats not what you said in your earlier posts, you denied this ever happening at all and even called out the source...

Read my initial response in this thread again. I'm denying the conspiracy theory that the fix was in from the FBI with an "inside deal". That's all.

(07-14-2016 09:37 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:25 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 04:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I doubt that the secret service agents were present when Clinton and Lynch spoke privately.

So what. They still would likely know that they met. If it's a nefarious meeting, you wouldn't want anyone to know, would you?

Just once I'd like you to admit that something just doesn't seem right with the Clintons. If you wonder why people give you a hard time you need to take a long, unbiased look at the party you support. It's not all peaches and cream. And yes, the GOP sucks.

I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the Democratic Party. It's full mostly of spineless wimps. And I've admitted plenty about the Clinton's over the years...you've likely missed it or simply ignored it. But if you're looking for me to be on board with the ridiculous "Clinton Body Count" you're delusional at best.

Maybe I have missed it but lately it just seems like you defend the Dems at all costs. I think the Corrine Brown thread is the first time I've seen you post a thread that would be a negative for that party. If I'm way off, I apologize but I'm not sure I've noticed you support a Republican other than the time you said you kind of liked Kasich and Rand Paul. That's even a head scratcher for me as they don't seem to align with the views that you present here.

Because you don't know me at all dude. Like many here. They know I'm a liberal so they immediately assign notions...likely from years of brainwash from the Limbaugh types in the con media.

I've had numerous posts about my dislike of Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid. I've condemned Weiner's actions and also some from one of my faves, Alan Grayson. I've said many times that Bill was wrong with his Monica issue and Clinton was wrong with her e-mail setup.

Yet because I defend them from attacks, that I feel have no substance, I'm immediately assumed to support everything they've ever done!

And I've voted for many Republicans in my life. Mostly local leaders when I lived in Toledo, but I also voted for Republican Rick Snyder for Michigan governor last time. And yeah...I totally regret that now!

(07-14-2016 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:38 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:26 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  ‘Gag Order’: FBI Confirms Special Secrecy Agreements For Agents In Clinton Email Probe

Update to this story. They really don't want anyone to know what the FBI agents actually thought.

Quote:The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy — and subject to lie detector tests — in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."

A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.

"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "….I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...probe.html

No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thats not what you said in your earlier posts, you denied this ever happening at all and even called out the source...

Read my initial response in this thread again. I'm denying the conspiracy theory that the fix was in from the FBI with an "inside deal". That's all.

then what can they possibly be talking about then?

(07-14-2016 09:56 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:38 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 12:26 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  ‘Gag Order’: FBI Confirms Special Secrecy Agreements For Agents In Clinton Email Probe

Update to this story. They really don't want anyone to know what the FBI agents actually thought.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...probe.html

No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thats not what you said in your earlier posts, you denied this ever happening at all and even called out the source...

Read my initial response in this thread again. I'm denying the conspiracy theory that the fix was in from the FBI with an "inside deal". That's all.

then what can they possibly be talking about then?

Who? This thread is about the FBI. And sure, there's going to be some within the FBI who think something nefarious happened on that plane because the FBI is big and just like the general public.

And as far as the FBI goes, any agreements the agents on the case signed are to prevent leaks in a highly publicized investigation and that is completely appropriate.

If you're asking about what the conversation on the plane was about, I'd say it's exactly what they said it was about. Personal information.

If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.
2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

I really can't think much of anything else that they would have talked about other than what they said.

And yes, it was bad optics and was likely inappropriate while the investigation was still wrapping up.

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into any theory that Bill somehow held something over Lynch to get her to somehow hold something over Comey to get him to decline to prosecute when many expected him to do that to begin with! That's a bridge too far.

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:56 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:38 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No, they just didn't want agents leaking information to the media in an extremely high-profile case. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thats not what you said in your earlier posts, you denied this ever happening at all and even called out the source...

Read my initial response in this thread again. I'm denying the conspiracy theory that the fix was in from the FBI with an "inside deal". That's all.

then what can they possibly be talking about then?

Who? This thread is about the FBI. And sure, there's going to be some within the FBI who think something nefarious happened on that plane because the FBI is big and just like the general public.

And as far as the FBI goes, any agreements the agents on the case signed are to prevent leaks in a highly publicized investigation and that is completely appropriate.

If you're asking about what the conversation on the plane was about, I'd say it's exactly what they said it was about. Personal information.

If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.
2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

I really can't think much of anything else that they would have talked about other than what they said.

And yes, it was bad optics and was likely inappropriate while the investigation was still wrapping up.

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into any theory that Bill somehow held something over Lynch to get her to somehow hold something over Comey to get him to decline to prosecute when many expected him to do that to begin with! That's a bridge too far.

I am not big on conspiracy theories, yes they are interesting, but thats it. No need to put your conspiracy hat on to know that both of those bold statements are possible.

But if you want to take off your "conspiracy hat" as you call it, why would they be talking about personal information? And what kind of personal information can it be?

Again, the op is complete conjecture and is made up out of thin air. You can't argue with these people Tom. Piss in the wind. It would be less of a waste of time.

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.

2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

So, for number one, you are saying they were going to not prosecute prior to interviewing her. (So you admit the fix was in)

For number two, you are admitting a quid pro quo.

I agree.

(07-14-2016 10:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.

2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

So, for number one, you are saying they were going to not prosecute prior to interviewing her. (So you admit the fix was in)

For number two, you are admitting a quid pro quo.

I agree.

No. Did you seriously expect Hillary, in an FBI interview, to say yeah...you got me...prosecute me and here's why? C'mon man. The FBI, as did all objective parties to this whole thing, knew long before Hillary was interviewed that this would never result in a successful prosecution.

(07-14-2016 10:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.

2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

So, for number one, you are saying they were going to not prosecute prior to interviewing her. (So you admit the fix was in)

For number two, you are admitting a quid pro quo.

I agree.

No. Did you seriously expect Hillary, in an FBI interview, to say yeah...you got me...prosecute me and here's why? C'mon man. The FBI, as did all objective parties to this whole thing, knew long before Hillary was interviewed that this would never result in a successful prosecution.

That's not their job and you know that. You also don't know that it wouldn't be a successful prosecution. At all.

Tom would die of smoke inhalation claiming there's no fire.

Is it against the law for the Clintons to talk to Lynch and say hey, if we win in November, we are thinking of keeping you on.

(07-14-2016 07:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is it against the law for the Clintons to talk to Lynch and say hey, if we win in November, we are thinking of keeping you on.

You really don't see the influence peddling in this comment, do you?

(07-14-2016 06:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Tom would die of smoke inhalation claiming there's no fire.

Just knock it off. You're better than this.

(07-14-2016 06:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.

2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

So, for number one, you are saying they were going to not prosecute prior to interviewing her. (So you admit the fix was in)

For number two, you are admitting a quid pro quo.

I agree.

No. Did you seriously expect Hillary, in an FBI interview, to say yeah...you got me...prosecute me and here's why? C'mon man. The FBI, as did all objective parties to this whole thing, knew long before Hillary was interviewed that this would never result in a successful prosecution.

That's not their job and you know that. You also don't know that it wouldn't be a successful prosecution. At all.

Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

That doesn't matter to the wing nuts. Crap people were calling for a firing squad on here. When it comes to politics a good majority on this site loses the ability to think rationally. You can't reason with an irrational person.

(07-14-2016 07:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is it against the law for the Clintons to talk to Lynch and say hey, if we win in November, we are thinking of keeping you on.

You really don't see the influence peddling in this comment, do you?

Of course I do. Im simply saying its not against the law.

(07-15-2016 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 06:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 10:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want me to put on my "conspiracy" hat. I'll give you these speculations as to what I think they may have talked about:

1. Maybe Lynch already knew that Comey was likely to decline to prosecute so she gave Bill a few days heads up. Inappropriate, but nothing forcing Comey to decline.

2. Maybe Bill is heading some of the searches for Cabinet personnel in a Hillary administration, so they spoke about her staying on.

So, for number one, you are saying they were going to not prosecute prior to interviewing her. (So you admit the fix was in)

For number two, you are admitting a quid pro quo.

I agree.

No. Did you seriously expect Hillary, in an FBI interview, to say yeah...you got me...prosecute me and here's why? C'mon man. The FBI, as did all objective parties to this whole thing, knew long before Hillary was interviewed that this would never result in a successful prosecution.

That's not their job and you know that. You also don't know that it wouldn't be a successful prosecution. At all.

Correct and correct. But it's not my decision and outside my scope. That's why I read and trust what the FBI and other experts said, that "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Translation, no chance of a conviction.

...and again that isn't their job. Their job, which you're aware of yet refuse to say, is to recommend indictment, or not. Not to play CYA because they think no prosecutor will, or won't, bring a case to trial.