Breaking News! The Federal Bureau of Cover-Ups (FBI) - No Criminal Charges

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by David Kleber - KB3FXI, Jul 5, 2016.

  1. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Hillary Clinton Skates on the email coverup! Whipeee!
    Could we all just finally wake up and smell the fascism?
    The Federal Government, at every level, is FUBAR.
    BTW, to me, this comes as no-surprise, and why should it?
    How about Trey (do nothing) Gowdy and the Benghazi hearing scam? How about the IRS investigation? How about the "Fast and Furious" investigation? How about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the NIST report on 9/11 Building 7? How about the TWA 800 investigation? How about the Waco investigation? How about the Warren Report?
    We live in a banana republic, which is why I will once again write in "No Confidence" for any and all federally elected positions this fall.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
  2. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    This guy does a good job at summing up my feelings on this subject:
     
  3. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member

    And Davey Petraeus knowingly gave away classified stuff and got off very easy. He should be in jail under a felony conviction. [Edited this word to felony.]

    We learned recently he gave away even more than everybody originally thought. We all know the two reasons he gave away secrets, don't we?

    Who thinks Hilary should step down as a candidate?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2016
  4. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    the republic is officially expired.

     
  5. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Hillary should have been behind bars back in her Arkansas days with the Whitewater scandal where her and Bill bilked a bunch of elderly people out of their retirement money on a real estate scam... not to mention all the other "Clinton" crimes. The number of dead bodies surrounding their operation are astounding. But don't peg me as a "democrat" basher. There's plenty of blood on the hands of Bush and Cheney.

    As I said, we live in a banana republic... just waiting for the fiat currency to collapse to make it all real for those who aren't yet in the know.

    It's a sad, sad state we're in. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

    A lady asked Benjamin Franklin," Well Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy". A republic, replied the Doctor, if you can keep it.

    We lost the republic and FBI Director Comey made the official announcement today.
     
  6. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    But, Paramus was charged and convicted... Hillary was not even charged. (sigh)

    Yes, I think Hillary should step down.

    Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynchs' meeting where they claimed they talked about their grandchildren; then, Obama and Hillary go campaigning together; then the FBI announcement just seem too suspect to me.
     
  7. Jeremy

    Jeremy Active Member

    Here's my question: If the FBI said that Clinton and her staff were very "careless" with classified information, how is it that she can hold a clearance? According to policy, her clearance should have been suspended, along with her aides, during the investigation. There are many red flags for a clearance investigation at this point, even if her actions were deemed not not sufficient to warrant prosecution. So how does a person stand to be POTUS yet not meet the standards of even a secret clearance?

    Still, I guess it's over and done with on the federal level. The only remedy is the court of public election come November.

    It does make me wonder that if this had happened in 1974, would the outcome have been different?
     
    wedgar likes this.
  8. Jeremy

    Jeremy Active Member

    Don't forget that Clinton met with the FBI this weekend as well. As usual, it is all over a holiday weekend, when no one is paying attention. This whole thing was choreographed from start to finish.
     
    wedgar likes this.
  9. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    I think if other than the current administration, or the Clinton administration, she would have lost her security clearance. I agree with you - she certainly should have lost it her security clearance.
     
  10. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    I believe so as well. I am disappointed with the FBI Director - I expected more from him.
     
  11. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member

    wedgar, you have the wrong order of things. She and Barry campaigned after Comey talked.

    But nothing changes, really.
     
  12. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Yep... nothing really ever changes.
    New boss, same as the old boss.

    Once again, we're now officially a banana republic.
    Let's see if Comey grows a pair and does the right thing. I'm not holding my breath.
     
  13. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    I stand corrected...

    But agree nothing ever changes...
     
  14. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    My understanding is that Hillary wasn't sworn in and the interview wasn't recorded...
    I take it that's standard operating procedure not do do those at the FBI...
     
  15. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member

    I'm guessing you mean she did not take an oath.

    If that's the case, I don't ever recall hearing that anybody takes an oath before an FBI interrogation.

    Constitutionally she did not have to answer any questions. At least that's my understanding. If you answer questions your answers must be truthful, I think. Isn't there a violation about lying to a federal officer?

    All that is very puzzling to me. Why anybody would submit to an FBI interrogation is beyond me. Hillary did, so there must a valid reason to do it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
    wedgar and W.T. Jones like this.
  16. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    There is no oath of honesty administered during an interview by agents or officers. They are not the determiners of guilt. The are the fact gatherers. They have to ferret out the facts and they know that they will get none at all or conflicting facts. In conflicting facts they have to find enough fact from other sources to offset the conflict. That is work and it depends on how hard the agent wants to work, or more than likely, how hard their supervisor has been told to let them work.

    If the agents, officers, or their supervisors think they have a case they present the facts to the legal system (usually a member of the AG's staff or for a local matter the DA, or a magistrate who has jurisdiction) who will determine whether or not a bill will be presented to the courts. If the agents or officers decide they do not have a case even though there is definite evidence of a crime then it the investigation sits until something new appears to make it interesting again.

    Or the agents or officers can decide there is no real evidence of a crime and just close it. So while the agents and officers are not determiners of guilt they do have a large amount of control over what gets presented to the legal system.

    Locally, this isn't a bad thing. For example, a youngster breaks a window and runs away in terror of what he has just done. An Officer apprehends the youth who pleads his case to officer and offers restitution. The Officer, if he believes the sincerity of the youth, can act as an intermediary between the owner of the window and the youth. If he gets the owner of the window to accept restitution and a promise of future good behavior then there is no need for an arraignment in front of a magistrate for vandalism.

    As far as making statements during an interview, USC Title 18 Section 1001 generally prohibits making false, incomplete, or general denial statements in matters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Most states have similar laws that put a false statement to a LEO at the misdemeanor level. Better to invoke the right to remain silent and say nothing. The only thing that the interviewee can get out of opening up, with or without a lawyer, is a statement from the agent or officer that the subject was cooperative. That really doesn't go to far in when the facts are presented to the Attorney General or the District Attorney. The only time it works out is at the sentencing hearing and only if the agent or officer shows up for it.

    In some cases, the legal system, being political in nature, determines that the facts presented do not provide a solid case and hence a "no bill" decision. Hence no day in court, no oath, and generally, no real resolution to the matter.

    Remember, you can not be found to be innocent. You can only be found to be not guilty.
     
    wedgar and Tony like this.
  17. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member

    It is so good to hear somebody recognize that there is no plea or verdict of innocent.

    Thanks, Walt.

    So, other than wanting to appear "innocent," why would anybody open their mouth in an interrogation, especially for the FBI?
     
    wedgar likes this.
  18. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Good question... Inquiring minds would like to know... :p
     
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  19. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    It is a good question but there is not a simple answer.

    Start with stupidity - that problem can't be cured. Invoking your right to remain silent is a very good thing. Say only what your attorney tells you to say and nothing more and hope you have a real good one.

    Desire to help - the upbringing in America for a long time is the police man is your friend. A good interviewer knows how to play on that when the interviewee demonstrates it. I personally fell for that by a skilled PSP interviewer but fortunately it was to my benefit to cooperate and lead the interviewer to what he needed to see in the documents. It was a good thing but after the interview I did one of those "V8 slap on the forehead" moves when I realized how skilful this fellow was. He took me completely off guard and made me feel like I was talking to an old friend. After that I decided it was time to learn how this stuff works.

    Superiority - The interviewee thinks he/she is smarter that the interviewer. A real major failing for a guilty person. See the PEACE interrogation method for why that doesn't work.

    Fear - The interviewee is scared. Never been interviewed before, never been in trouble before. Interviewee babbles like an idiot.

    There are a lot more but it all boils down to the person who is being interviewed doesn't know enough to shut up.

    BTW, there is the "confession" which has unique connotations. Even if a person of interest confesses to a LEO the LEO still has to bring a preponderance of evidence to court. The LEO must still give the prosecutor the ammo to prove the confession is valid. If the Defense challenges the confession saying that it was obtained under duress then the fact finder must be able to determine how the confession was obtained. It is perfectly legal for police to use deceptive or coercive measures (short of brutality) to obtain a confession. However they must prove that the confession was voluntary and that the person knew they were confessing. Again, it is better to just remain silent and make the other side work rather than laying everything out on the table. Remember, both the guilty and the not guilty will say "I didn't do it." The interviewer's job is to get someone to say "I did it."

    Remember, the guy on the other side of the table has a job to do. It is like a salesman. The salesman gets the commission for the sale. The LEO gets the "attaboy" for getting a confession. At the end of the day he goes home no matter which way the interview goes. You may not.

    You can also google the "Reid Technique" which is the general standard for interrogation and interviews. However, it has come under some disfavour as psychologists and others have determined that it has lead to many false confessions.

    "The Table"

    Did you know that the interviewer will set up the interview location in a manner that he thinks will best elicit a cooperative subject. If he wants to project friendliness he will position himself and the interviewee on the same side of the table. If he wants the interviewee to feel relaxed but still exert a modicum of control he will position himself across the narrow portion of the table with the door to the room behind the subject so that the subject feels in his mind he has an exit. If the interviewer wants more control he will reverse the positions with him between the subject and the door. If he wants to distance himself and isolate the subject he will use the table's length so that there is distance and the subject feels alone. Even the method of seating the subject plays to how the interviewer wants the subject to feel. Friendly is greet him at the door and guide him to his seat and build a rapport with the subject to make him think "this isn't such a bad fellow" or "this guy doesn't think I did it". The "I am in charge" interview will have the interviewer stay seated, not even recognise the subject nor give any direction, let the subject decide where to sit which causes uncertainty, and when he sits, no matter where, it is the wrong chair and he is told to move.

    The actual training for an interviewer is long and there is a lot of role playing. For me the interviewee that just clammed up was the most frustrating. Of course, that is the test of the interviewer as well. A good interviewer will have his "facts' assembled and in the order in wants to present them to the interviewee. The interviewee will respond to the presented facts even if he says nothing at all. The eyes, head movements, and body language will tell the interviewer that he has hit something and it will be noted and in the next interview a different tact will be taken to work on the responses from the first. It takes a very strong person to remain inexpressive to what is being done. BTW, a good interviewer is not the person you want to play poker with. There will not be a "tell" when they note something.

    The worst words an interviewee can hear at the next meeting is "previously you said something like" but the interviewer will not repeat the interviewee's words verbatim. The interviewee will be off guard, struggling to remember exactly what he said, and the interviewer will move quickly to get the interviewee to talk so he can't reassemble his statement. If it is the truth the interviewee will be able to respond consistently. If not then it will be a wandering answer. Note I said consistently and not quickly. A person telling the truth will have to search his memory for the event or information before answering but the answer will be consistent with what was said. The person telling the falsehood will still search his memory but he cannot rely on actual events or factual information. Only what he may have dreamed up during the first interview.

    That is why agents being sent undercover have to have their legends down pat. Their information is drilled into them so it seems more like real life than a fiction dreamed up by someone. And it is based on their real lives so as to have some basis in fact. Otherwise a good interrogator will note the variances between the stories. See "Between Silk and Cyanide" by Leo Marks for a good reference.

    In the training a video of 5 subjects is shown. All actual interviews done in a corporate environment. The object of the video was to have the class determine who was prevaricating. We had to write down the answers and put them in our notebooks. At the end of the class the video was shown again and we were asked to re-evaluate our decisions. I didn't pick anyone right on the first viewing. After the training they were easy to spot. The old saying "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive" is so true. So don't try to fool the interviewer. They will keep at you until you can't remember the story you fabricated and then they have you for at least making false statements.

    So to answer you question of why say anything at all? The subject sometimes just can't help opening up because of the techniques used and a skilful interviewer can make you think you are being quiet when you are really shouting at the top of your lungs.
     
    wedgar likes this.
  20. Tony

    Tony Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks, Walt. That's quite an insight.

    If the guilty are convicted, so be it.

    If a knowingly not guilty person is emprisoned by authorities deliberately withholding exculpatory material, or getting a knowingly bogus confession, I have a solution. Immediately jail the errant authority for the crime. If the "defendant" had been on death row, swap him with the errant authority immediately at the same spot in the appeal process. If the execution would have been the same night . . . so long. We'll weed out bad cops and agents pretty quick.

    When your job includes removing somebody's freedom, you best take it seriously.

    The police's job is difficult enough without bogus, incompetent officers tarnishing the profession's multitudes of honest, competent cops.
     
    wedgar and W.T. Jones like this.

Share This Page