Having done countless interviews and interrogations for the
FBI, and later in my capacity as a Security Manager with a Fortune 100 company,
I’m convinced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ‘jumped in the tank’ on
this investigation. Harsh, you might
say. I don’t think so. The reports of Hillary Clinton’s interview seem
to show every indication that the FBI's interview was choreographed to cause Ms.
Clinton the least possible inconvenience, and to create the best possible
opportunity for her to rationalize past conduct involving her emails and her
personal ‘server.’
First, let us establish a basis. The FBI was involved in a massive criminal
investigation that lasted months, involved numerous FBI Agents and outside
experts, and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The ‘subject’ of that investigation, the
‘suspect,’ was Hillary Clinton. And, the
culmination of that investigation was Hillary Clinton being interviewed for a
little over three hours; and apparently one, two or three Agents wrote 302s
summarizing their understanding of what took place and what was said during the
interview.
Ms. Clinton had previously stated that the FBI inquiry was
little more than a “security review;” a characterization to which FBI Director
James Comey strongly objected. However,
as it turned out that was exactly what the FBI accomplished – a ‘security
review’ of the State Department’s dangerously inadequate procedures in handling
‘classified’ and other sensitive documents.
With the primary offender being the US Secretary of State, Hillary
Rodham Clinton.
So what is a FD 302
to which the FBI has often referred? It’s been quite a few years now, but it sounds
like the FBI has not progressed from that antiquated system. It’s basically a blank sheet of paper. The Principal Special Agent dictates his
interview notes, and a stenographer types them up, corrects grammar and structural
flaws (without theoretically changing the content), therefore giving the 302 a
professional look. The Agent dictating
the 302 reads the finished product and signs it as accurate. Other Agents that were present during the
interview also sign the 302 as being accurate.
The interview format:
FBI Director Comey has stated five or six Agents participated in the
interview of Clinton. Yes, that’s hard
to believe. But, let’s give him the
benefit of the doubt. OK, we’d have
approximately six Agents, Hillary Clinton (of course) and she probably had two
or three attorneys and/or staff people with her. Reportedly, the FBI’s interview seems more
like a get-together, a social gathering, a conclave, rather than an official,
fact-finding interview.
Normally, there will be one principal Agent conducting the
interview. If two or more Agents are
questioning a subject, it becomes too confusing and the interview begins to
lose focus. Perhaps the Clinton
interview was compartmentally separated with Agents conducting their own
segment. But, this too can become very
confusing; and usually obscures good follow-up questioning. The principal interviewing Agent has to manage
the interview and be thoroughly prepared.
He or she usually takes the notes because he already knows where they
want to go with the interview. And, he
is, should be, the most informed investigator in the room.
Additionally, one Agent is assigned to do the ‘Interview
Log.’ What this consists of is a time
sheet including notations such as: What
time the interview began and what time it ended. When breaks were taken and the nature of the
break; were breaks taken to consult with attorneys, go to the bathroom, serve
coffee, etc.
In HRC’s interview, I imagine that there was at least one assigned
woman Special Agent present in the room – if for nothing else than to soften
appearances. The principal Agent would
begin with introductions and then establish the foundation. This might take 30 to 45 minutes – perhaps an
hour. The object being to create a
comfortable atmosphere and to lay-out the general ground rules.
The interview:
After the principal Agent finishes his questioning, he would ask other
Agents in the room for follow-up questions.
Follow-up questions usually develop other areas of interest based on the
subject’s answers and the need for clarification. In an important case like this, the principal
Agent probably would require a private meeting with the other Agents in an
adjacent office or conference room to discuss the interview’s progress and to
garner suggestions from the other Agents present. In most instances, this private meeting would
generate new areas of questioning that need to be explored in more detail.
Subsequent: The
principal Agent, utilizing his hand-written notes, would then dictate the
findings of the interview. The FBI used
to have a ‘five day rule,’ which meant that the interview notes had to be
transcribed within five days.
Now, let’s be clear, if this is what occurred in such a very
short time (the alleged 3+ hours), the FBI Agents had to have been already briefed that there was to be no prosecution in the matter. More importantly, they used this antiquated
interview method to make sure that Clinton didn’t stumble and somehow throw a
wrench into the previously decided decision.
The FBI was simply going through the motions – little more than a PR
exercise.
What should the FBI have done? At the very least, the FBI should have
required a verbatim transcript. Even
better would have been a video and transcript.
Now, it’s my understanding that Clinton’s attorneys negotiated (demanded)
the interview conditions, prior to the interview; and that there would be no
transcript - a condition to which the FBI agreed. In
other words, Clinton’s attorneys and the FBI colluded to establish the least
effective interview format; and the most beneficial format for Clinton. What if Clinton had refused to be
interviewed? From an FBI standpoint that
would be fine too. They would simply
refer their investigative results to the US Attorney with the postscript that
the subject (Hillary Clinton) refused to be interviewed. This can also be an indication of guilt when
a subject refuses to be interviewed.
Duration: I’ve
undergone depositions, involving civil matters on investigations that I had
conducted (civil and criminal matters which were infinitely less complex than
the Hillary matter) that lasted more than a day. Every answer, every word, was transcribed. If I misstated or embellished under oath that
would have subsequently been used against me in court to diminish or destroy my
testimony. This is mentioned to show
contrast with the FBI’s ‘hit and run’ interview of Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is an attorney. She is a master of obfuscation and
evasion. Her attorneys, as is there
custom, would object during the interview and ask to confer privately with Clinton. With breaks and attorney conferences outside
the interview room, I would guess Hillary’s interview lasted no more than an
hour – if that.
My advice to any Congressional Review Panel evaluating the
quality, findings and conclusions of this FBI interview would be to request all
hand-written notes completed by Agents, as well as the ‘Interview Log.’ This would be a pretty good indication of how
thorough the interview was. Or should I
say that it would probably confirm what most current and former FBI Agents
already know.
Yes indeed folks, politics talks and justice walks.
True Nelson
