Washington DC, (TFC)— The FBI’s decision to not indict Hillary Clinton has been largely overshadowed by ongoing police killings and reputed retaliation. If it were getting appropriate media attention, then perhaps more of us would’ve heard of an unusual feature of the Clinton case. FBI investigators were ordered to sign irregular non-disclosure agreements forcing them into silence, unless called to testify. The latter, of course, isn’t happening, much to public and FBI suspicion alike.
Anonymous FBI officials who commented on the agreements felt they resulted from an “inside deal.” “This is very, very unusual”, said one unnamed official, claiming to never have signed or distributed one before. Some even felt the so-called “deal” may have had something to do with Loretta Lynch’s controversial meeting with Bill Clinton. No, this isn’t the talk of conspiracy theorists. According to Free Thought Project, a massive delay in a batch of Clinton emails came just days following the meeting. The specific form agents signed, New York Post reports, is dubbed a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement”.
Critics of FBI’s decision to not recommend charges point to director James Comey’s listing of violation after violation committed by Clinton. FBI was able to determine top secret information was shared “carelessly”, as Comey stated. Despite this–and other lines crossed–FBI refused to call the act’s “criminal”. Other government sources suggested FBI essentially rewrote laws in order to avoid charging Clinton. In doing so, they abused the very laws through which she could’ve been charged, FTP reports.
Not only was Clinton not sworn under oath during questioning, but few if any recordings were made. Further details on the “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” are obscured by media distractions, and protection of Clinton.
Perhaps things would seem different if more resources were utilized to obtain answers on FBI’s gag order. Unfortunately, the candidates email controversy is one many, especially her base, are eager to forget. FBI sources have expressed anger at the director’s decision, claiming he “managed to piss off right and left.” It would appear that individuals, and not just corporations and banks, are sometimes too big to charge.