3 ms·
Yes, she sounds quite paranoid. More paranoid than is justifiable from the limited communication made by the FBI so far. That said, this seems pretty unaccepta
by rudolf0 10y ago
Yes, she sounds quite paranoid. More paranoid than is justifiable from the limited communication made by the FBI so far.
That said, this seems pretty unacceptable. Regarding her attorney:
>Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
- marcoperaza 10y agoWhat's wrong with that? The FBI is totally free to walk up to anyone and ask them questions. And yes, they're quite good at finding people since that's a big part of their job.
- ocschwar 10y agoIf they consistently decline to ask those questions to your lawyer, and drop the matter within hours of a foreign country giving you a long term resident worker visa, you're right to be concerned.
- marcoperaza 10y agoSure, but publishing an opinion piece blasting the FBI for things they did in your imagination is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with what the FBI actually did.
- ocschwar 10y agoThere is plenty wrong with hinting that they want to take you into their warm embrace without a lawyer present.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThat's called getting arrested, if that's what they're planning at all. You don't have the right to set the time, place, and company for your arrest. They'd want a shot at a 1-1 interview. Convincing crooks to spill the beans is a valid part of their tactics. Yes, you have the right to have a lawyer present; they have to stop interrogating you once you ask. You also have the right to not have a lawyer present and answer questions anyway. The FBI of course hopes that crooks are stupid enough to exercise that latter right.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]