THE LEGALITIES OF SIGNING NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS BY A "GOV'T OF THE PEOPLE. "

     How on earth can it be legal for anyone in Gov't to require someone else to sign non-disclosure statements, that prevent Congress from conducting a proper investigation into illegal or improper activities of an Administration?
     I recall an instance in Canada when the UMWA (United Mine Workers of America) inserted a clause that prevented a worker from testifying against another worker, regardless of whether it was criminal activity performed on the job-site or not.
     At the time, one of my assignments for Kaiser Coal Co. in Sparwood, B.C., was to co-ordinate safety for an open pit coal mine employing 2000 employees.
     I was part of a team of investigators into irregular activities on the site.
     This made it very difficult for our investigations into incidents that, did indeed, involve criminal activity on the job-site.
     This was partially because the B.C. Gov't at the time was under the control of "The NDP Party", ( An offshoot from the Communist-influenced "CCF Party" that renamed itself after a tremendous loss of popularity, due to the Cold War between the Allies and Russia Post WW2.)and they were very partial to all the major unions in B.C.
     No matter the severity of the incident, the Gov't always took the side of the Unions, no matter what!.
     Not unlike what's taking place in the U.S. today. (Another reason I'm so frustrated to see the nightmare happening again.)
     But the difference between the behavior of the Country of Canada and the U.S.A. is, we are protected by our Three sacred Documents guaranteeing us a Government "Of The People, by The People, and For The People" which entitles us to know the actions of our Party in power.
     I was reminded of the mining situation while reading about the "Benghazi" incident, whereby the President has commanded the surviving witnesses to secrecy, by having them sign a document not to reveal the facts on the "Benghazi" slaughter of our American Ambassador, and 3 other Gallant heroes. (By the way, there has been no mention of medals being awarded to these late heroes for dedicating their lives to protect the Embassy and the Safehouse that went with it!) 
     The stench of that omission sends us a message of skullduggery right there!
     The object of my inquiry though is, how in the World can a President protect himself and his questionable actions by swearing the witnesses to secrecy, in an apparent attempt to cover his own ass to our elected Congress? How??
     It's all too reminiscent of "The tail wagging the dog".
     By the way, the NDP Gov't was only able to last out 3 of the 4 year term they were elected to, because of the terrible way they behaved while in power under the guidance of Phil Barrett.
     Someone please explain how an even worse Party down here can get away with it!! Just sayin'.