[unclebucknasty]

Part of what makes it ominous is that the agent is too casually requesting that the host open the gates, and suggesting that the host has zero-risk, simply because he/she states his/her innocence.

This, when it seems pretty obvious that they'd have to do some investigation of the host, if only to rule out his/her degree of involvement.

[Frondo]

Yes, you're right, like I said in my other reply, I'd assumed the parent poster's engagement with the agent had been trimmed down for the sake of the story, that there was more substance they left out because that was the overall thrust of the story.

And I think you're also right that they'd do some investigation, but I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly. This "people are uploading filth to my website" situation isn't so uncommon like it once was (back in my day, sonny!!).

The chance that that individual is trying to buddy up to the FBI in order to escape detection is more of a Hollywood fantasy than how real life would play out. These agents are human beings too, and they know that if someone's coming to them to ask for help, they're all on the same page.

[unclebucknasty]

>I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly

You're most likely correct. I'd add that even with the agents being human beings, there may still be some protocol that they are compelled to follow in vetting the host. I'd want to know that going in.

That's still not to say that this would end badly for the host. It's just that, given that the tone of the response is correct (even if shortened) , there is clearly more involved. And, when you have a representative of an agency with pretty broad powers, deep resources, and potential mandates soft-pedaling what's at stake, it can have a pretty ominous feel to it.