Given the behavior of bad apple cops and agents, she is right to feel threatened. If these are agents with good intentions, they have no reason to be afraid of a lawyer. If they are going to circumvent her legal protections, harassment is the minimum best outcome for her.
As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment. Imagine this was a work setting, the FBI was a coworker of this individual, and they asked for a date. After the very first "no, please don't bring it up again" it becomes harassment.
Untrue, legally, at least in the UK where at least two incidents that cause you distress are required to have been committed by the same person/group. And then it's up to a judge to decide if the 'distressing' behaviour would be considered distressing by any reasonable person.
Upon reviewing my previous response, I don't even see where I made mention of gender even to the extent of a pronoun.
I don't want to get too far off topic, but this is blatantly false, especially as far as law enforcement is concerned.
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) the Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings
Logically, it would follow that if you don't know what a question IS, you can 'plead the fifth' to it on the basis that it could be incriminating. But again, IANAL.
You shouldn't either. They are not your friend.