5 ms·

If the FBI comes knocking on your door, you have already been tagged, and likely thoroughly investigated for something bad. Or more simply put: There is no goo

If the FBI comes knocking on your door, you have already been tagged, and likely thoroughly investigated for something bad. Or more simply put: There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. She has every right to be "paranoid."

dragonwriter 10y ago
> There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)
- zyxley 10y ago
  There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit and then refuse to tell your lawyer why they want to talk to you.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Not disagreeing with that, just that the more general comment I was responding to was an overgeneralization.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- shepardrtc 10y ago
  Many years ago I had an FBI agent call me and ask if he could come and talk to me because he was doing a background check on someone who was going for Top Secret clearance. I said sure. He came to my work, asked a few questions, and then went on his way. Gave me his card just in case I remembered anything he might like to hear. Never heard from him again. Very polite, nice guy.
  - eric_h 10y ago
    Seems quite different from this case. The agent you're referring to stated his intentions up front quite clearly. As far as I can tell the only details revealed by the FBI in this case is that they had some "documents" (without giving any context) for the author to review and answer questions about, and refused to share any details with her lawyer. I'm not discounting that there are FBI agents who behave properly and politely without pushing the limits of legality, but I also believe there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there are plenty of agents who share none of those qualities (note that I'm not speculating on what fraction of agents are in each bucket, just that both are non-zero).
- c0nfused 10y ago
  Typically background check interviews are contracted out now. The FBI should be out of the picture. https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/cooperation-in-investigations/#url=Investigator-Verification https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations...
- ocschwar 10y ago
  In both those cases, there should be no problem with letting the person's attorney know what this is about. If it's a clearance investigation, it's a no brainer. The government has no problem leaving voice mail in Peter's mailbox saying "we're trying to reach Paul because Bob's applied for a security clearance." So this kind of secretiveness is unnecessary. If it's an ongoing investigation, having the lawyer there is a GOOD THING, because it becomes the lawyer's job to keep his client aware of the repercussions of doing anything to sabotage the investigation.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)

zyxley 10y ago
There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit and then refuse to tell your lawyer why they want to talk to you.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Not disagreeing with that, just that the more general comment I was responding to was an overgeneralization.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
shepardrtc 10y ago
Many years ago I had an FBI agent call me and ask if he could come and talk to me because he was doing a background check on someone who was going for Top Secret clearance. I said sure. He came to my work, asked a few questions, and then went on his way. Gave me his card just in case I remembered anything he might like to hear. Never heard from him again. Very polite, nice guy.
- eric_h 10y ago
  Seems quite different from this case. The agent you're referring to stated his intentions up front quite clearly. As far as I can tell the only details revealed by the FBI in this case is that they had some "documents" (without giving any context) for the author to review and answer questions about, and refused to share any details with her lawyer. I'm not discounting that there are FBI agents who behave properly and politely without pushing the limits of legality, but I also believe there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there are plenty of agents who share none of those qualities (note that I'm not speculating on what fraction of agents are in each bucket, just that both are non-zero).
c0nfused 10y ago
Typically background check interviews are contracted out now. The FBI should be out of the picture. https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/cooperation-in-investigations/#url=Investigator-Verification https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations...
ocschwar 10y ago
In both those cases, there should be no problem with letting the person's attorney know what this is about. If it's a clearance investigation, it's a no brainer. The government has no problem leaving voice mail in Peter's mailbox saying "we're trying to reach Paul because Bob's applied for a security clearance." So this kind of secretiveness is unnecessary. If it's an ongoing investigation, having the lawyer there is a GOOD THING, because it becomes the lawyer's job to keep his client aware of the repercussions of doing anything to sabotage the investigation.