Is it just me or is anyone else seeing a trend toward Source’s needing to have so much knowledge of an issue that we just steer Subject’s toward prepping a Source? (Tell a Subject that the source’s they are giving us will be interviewed for foreign knowledge and the source needs to use proper country word when interviewed)
Ie. Source’s knowledge of a Subject’s foreign background of “somewhere in Asia” isn’t good enough. The source must say the word “China or Hong Kong” in order to provide adequate complete coverage.
That’s been happening for years they’re just giving us more of what they want in the adjudicative process lately. The problem is, this is just ending with Investigators telling a Subject to tell their Sources what to say. The fine print is that a Subject is permitted to remind people of information such as dates and locations, they are not permitted to tell a person novel to that information what to tell an FI during an interview.
I guess telling a Subject what words their Source’s need to say must have lots of adjudicative value somewhere??? I wonder who is in charge of telling the Subject what they can and cannot tell their friends and family to do? I am certain it’s not us investigators. It’s all becoming ridiculousness in my estimation and perhaps adding to the heightened threat and tension that so many people in this country already have toward their government.
Yeah…I’m not going to do that. I tell subjects to let their verifiers/references know that an investigator may be contacting them, so that sources will be more likely to respond. Sources shouldn’t be expected to know every detail. I forget half of what goes on in my own life
