When James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton, the country was baffled by the decision. Six in ten Americans thought the FBI had made the wrong choice, and apparently many in the FBI are among them.
In order to silence those serving under Comey, non-disclosure agreements have been distributed to the agents who worked directly with the investigation. The FBI is either trying to quiet discontent, or they’re worried that agents might come forward with accusations of an inside deal that lead to the recommendation. Either way, it’s clear that many who worked the investigation were caught off guard by the decision.
While this may seem like a routine practice at the end of a criminal investigation, it is apparently anything but.
How strange is it to ask FBI agents to swear an oath of silence? Read what one former FBI chief had to say on the next page:
Gowdy or someone should make a statement that the NDAs that all those agents were forced to sign are invalid when the secrecy demanded covers up something illegal. A valid contract must satisfy 1) capacity, 2) Consideration and 3) Legality. An NDA that suppresses the truth and covers up known criminal activity cannot be enforced.
SO MAN UP !!!!!
Sooner or later it will be leaked
By law Hilary Clinton is unable to be president, see for yourself……18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 101 – RECORDS AND REPORTS
Sec. 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov
§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, §552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§234, 235 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§128, 129, 35 Stat. 1111, 1112).
Section consolidates sections 234 and 235 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Reference in subsection (a) to intent to steal was omitted as covered by section 641 of this title.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in subsecs. (a) and (b).
1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–510 inserted at end “As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Section 552(b) of Pub. L. 101–510 provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective as of January 1, 1989.”
So FBI, tell the American people how the deal really went down, then apologize later, that’s always worked for the Dems!
Transperencey at it’s finest.
Forbidden to do your job
Isn’t the pile of dirt under starting to show a hump in the Oval office. Where the Housekeepers
Congress needs to lift the ban and force them to talk
Then don’t do it.