Five questions FBI Director Wray must answer when he’s grilled by the House Judiciary Committee

[HARK!]

Good grief, pull back on the paranoia. My spelling of "u toob" has nothing to do with you. Nor do I care where you're from or how closely related your parents are. It never even crossed my mind to wonder about such things. You're just an random internet user with a weird medallion for an avatar. That's all.

Dear Sir, the polite thing to do would be to restore my quote. There was no good reason to edit it in that manner..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Approached with the evidence, the Feds seem to be stumbling to find answers. I think that this requires further investigation.

So Comer asks a moronic question trying to get the FBI director to reveal operational details about undercover agents and confidential human sources and Director Wray refuses to respond with details and that's stumbling that requires investigations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dear Sir, the polite thing to do would be to restore my quote. There was no good reason to edit it in that manner..

Sure there was a good reason. Long block quotes of irrelevant material are annoying and plug up the flow of a conversation. I am aware of what is in those clips and they were not relevant to my question so I removed them and marked them as such.

 

[KCfromNC]

Approached with the evidence, the Feds seem to be stumbling to find answers.

Which evidence is that again?

 

[HARK!]

Which evidence is that again?

See Post #13.

 

[KCfromNC]

See Post #13.

Already refuted in post 17.

 

[HARK!]

Already refuted in post 17.

Wrong.

Consider your post refuted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Approached with the evidence, the Feds seem to be stumbling to find answers. I think that this requires further investigation.

Wray's answer about the 'fedsurrection' seems pretty clear and non-stumbling.

“I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and is a disservice to our brave, hardworking dedicated men and women,” Mr Wray told the committee.

 

[wing2000]

Wray's answer about the 'fedsurrection' seems pretty clear and non-stumbling.

“I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and is a disservice to our brave, hardworking dedicated men and women,” Mr Wray told the committee.

The whole line of questioning is ludicrous and nothing more than a performance for the MAGA news media.

So Comer asks a moronic question trying to get the FBI director to reveal operational details about undercover agents and confidential human sources and Director Wray refuses to respond with details and that's stumbling that requires investigations?

In MAGA world, operational security and sources are small prices to pay for a misleading headline.....

 

[Hank77]

I did. Did you notice that the OP was posted before the hearing took place?

Yes, I did. Does that mean I shouldn't post it when it actually happens?

 

[Hans Blaster]

In MAGA world, operational security and sources are small prices to pay for a misleading headline.....

One of these has to do with confidential humans sources (CHSs) often called informants used by FBI agents that happened to be among the crowd or associated with Jan6 defendants. A CHS is not involved in the criminal activity being investigated but has some visibility into a criminal group or behavior (think the drug dealer's girlfriend, the bartender at the outlaw biker bar, the neo-nazi's coworker, etc.) and provides information to law enforcement, in this case the FBI. In this case there are a number of CHSs associated with defendants, particularly, if not exclusively, the Proud Boys. They definitely have complicated some cases, which is why we know they exist. What were these CHSs doing for the FBI? Feeding them info about "leftist extremists" like "antifa". (They were helping the FBI deal with their enemies.) The FBI apparently paid little to no attention to the Proud Boys including their PB associated CHSs. It was quite an intelligence failure.

It's not surprising that the FBI (or any other LE agency) would not want to reveal information about informants, though, Wray frankly did fail in his hearing to address this in a concrete way. It was a question he should have anticipated and his staff didn't prepare him for it. What he could have said was something like this:

"Court documents from Jan 6th cases have revealed that X FBI CHS affiliated with the Proud Boys and providing information on other groups were involved in the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol including Y defendants. This information is available in public court filings and for reasons of operational security we will not reveal if there were any others. No FBI CHS was instructed by the FBI to participate in the events of Jan 6th."

Of course that wouldn't have stopped toads like Comer from distorting that statement. Sigh.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Approached with the evidence, the Feds seem to be stumbling to find answers. I think that this [i.e. the fedsurrection] requires further investigation.

What sort of evidence are you alluding to? Is there something beyond yahoos (or Tucker Carlson) chanting that Ray Epps is a fed?

 

[NxNW]

What sort of evidence are you alluding to? Is there something beyond yahoos (or Tucker Carlson) chanting that Ray Epps is a fed?

Tapes! A laptop! Benghazi! We need more investigations!

Yargle Bargle!

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong.

Consider your post refuted.

Come on, there has to be some sort of actual evidence. This kind of empty bluster can't be all that's backing up all of the grand GOP claims of, well, whatever it is this week that we're supposed to be outraged by.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Come on, there has to be some sort of actual evidence. This kind of empty bluster can't be all that's backing up all of the grand GOP claims of, well, whatever it is this week that we're supposed to be outraged by.

Nope, that's all there is. Well, unless you include the deliberate deceptions.