- The FBI agents working on the Hillary email case had to sign documents that prohibited them from giving any information on the case without prior approval.
- That means that even compelling evidence against Hillary could not be discussed or given over without consent from the heads of the FBI.
- Some say this document was because of the classified information that was in the Hillary emails.
- Comey said that 110 emails contained classified information, and some contained information that was classified as Top Secret.
It was confirmed yesterday, by the FBI, that agents who were connected with the investigation of Hillary’s private email server had signed documents that prohibited them from disclosing information about the case.
The document, or Case Briefing Acknowledgment, stated that any information was to have prior approval before being given to anyone. That means, that even the true information that could possibly condemn Hillary, could not be discussed without permission.
Breaking News Alert: Facebook Is Suppressing Politically Conservative Content. Join PatriotPlanet.com Today and Let Your Voice Be Heard.
The Acknowledgement states, “The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation. 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.”
This information is an alarming red flag about the investigation into the email scandal of Hillary Clinton. Clearly, keeping information away from the public is a priority for the FBI. Yet, this now raises new questions about the investigation. What exactly did they find, that they are now not disclosing to the public? Comey was able to come up with explanations for why he suggested not to press charges on Hillary, yet Lynch could not.
A retired FBI agent, who requested to remain anonymous, said that the “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” is given only to “the most sensitive of sensitive cases.” That type of classification for a case, he said, “comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case.”
However, FBI Assistant Director Stephen D. Kelly said that these types of orders are “not a unique circumstance” and that agents “may from time to time be asked to sign similar forms.”
Yet, why would the FBI need such a document to be signed if they were simply conducting a “security review?” Grassley ended up asking the same questions in a letter he wrote. The letter stated, “In light of all these inconsistencies, it is even more troubling that the FBI tried to gag its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. [Y]ou indicated that agents working on this case were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that failed to exempt protected whistleblowing. Only after I wrote to you did you advise your FBI agents that they are still free to speak with Congress regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.”
For a case that they were trying to keep so under wraps, a lot of things came out to the public. Even after Bill Clinton had a private meeting with Loretta Lynch on June 28th, the FBI said that no special counsel was needed. Wasn’t the meeting between Clinton and Lynch a little bit of a conflict of interests?
It seems to me that the FBI went through a lot of hoops to make it “appear” that they were taking this case seriously when in reality they were probably wasting time and diverting focus, but why?