Well, the premise of your notion is flawed, no one is suggesting the FBI in it’s entirely is corrupt, at least not anyone I would take seriously.
Good, because that’s how you come across!
Can’t help if people read me wrong, I’m glad you asked and allowed me to dispel that idea.
1 Like
Well, you can, but your proclivity to go on and on and on might, just might, get in the way. 
Anyway, happy memorial day weekend. wutwut
1 Like
On the other hand, they do give you a lot of things to wonder about.
1 Like
Well, it makes one wonder about the seeming expansion of power they seem to have, yes. However, the boring run of the mill stuff they do is hardly ever reported or commented on.
The political shit has gotten way out of hand.
1 Like
I like what I’m hearing here, gotta say
1 Like
I used to read the appropriations committee reports as they came out. Big fun. Makes you wonder why more people don’t.
2 Likes
Still, the unsubstantiated story was enough for Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., to spread the falsehood even further. Raskin is the ranking Democrat on the House’s Oversight Committee, which is investigating FBI mishandling of investigations into the Biden family business. He serves a similar role to the one Adam Schiff played when Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was attempting to unravel the FBI’s Russia-collusion hoax. Schiff’s office was known for misleading leaks to CNN and other Democrat media outfits. He also falsely claimed for years to have evidence of treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
The heat is on.
CRUZ: See that’s the problem, the FBI --and I’ve had this conversation with Chris Wray too-- this is why you are damaging the institution. The American people have a right to know whether there is serious, credible evidence that the president of the United States took a $5 million bribe. And by the way, if it’s false, Chairman Durbin just rolled his eyes, if Chairman Durbin were interested in the rule of law, we would have a hearing on these allegations. Of course, the Democrats don’t want a hearing on these allegations.
And to be clear, if the allegations were false, do you know who could disprove them? Joe Biden could call on this to be released publicly, but the FBI is stonewalling.
ABBATE: Two things, Senator, no one is stonewalling. The 10-23 was provided in response to the subpoena from the House Oversight Committee. The pertinent information is there and I reject your assertion that the FBI is politicized.
HAWLEY: Will you release the document to the public? It’s unclassified. Don’t you think the American people have the right to see it?
ABBATE: Senator, the document, as you know, contains sensitive information that has bearing on the life of the source of the information, potentially.
HAWLEY: You can redact the source’s name, we do this all the time.
ABBATE: In some instances, senator, I know you know this, that is not sufficient to protect people. And that’s what we strive to do each and every day, and I would hope you take that seriously too.
HAWLEY: Oh I take it very seriously, but I also take seriously the fact that your institution has repeatedly abused its authority.
If we tell you, he could DIE! of embarrassment.
This FBI tactic was a mainstay of terrorism prosecutions for roughly two decades. While its use lately has waned, the Ventura case may indicate that authorities are still open to conjuring terrorists where none existed.
I recall they did the same kind of thing to the Muslim kid in Albany after 9/11. dicks
and now this:
Why did the FBI withhold the FD-1023 from Congress?
House Republicans spent weeks battling with the FBI to gain access to a document that a whistleblower said contained allegations against the Biden family.
The document, known as an FD-1023, memorialized information provided by an FBI source that alleged President Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, received a $5 million bribe from a foreign national in exchange for favorable policy decisions.
The FBI initially denied that the document existed. Wray eventually relented and allowed lawmakers to view a redacted version of the form, but not before House Republicans threatened to hold him in contempt of Congress.
Why the FBI took so many steps to conceal the fact that it had documentation of the allegation, as well as whether agents took any steps to investigate it, is likely to be one of the questions facing Wray.
and this:
Why did the FBI limit the number of witnesses who IRS investigators could contact during the Hunter Biden investigation?
Gary Shapley, a 14-year veteran of the IRS who worked for years on the Hunter Biden investigation, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the FBI sought to cap the number of interviews investigators could conduct as they probed suspicious activity related to Hunter Biden’s finances.
“The FBI tried to dictate that we only do five of the planned interviews so FBI management could reevaluate if they wanted to continue assisting,” Shapley testified, referring to the FBI’s actions in September 2020. At the time, IRS investigators had spent months requesting to conduct at least 15 witness interviews in the Hunter Biden tax case.
Shapley also described what he saw as a specific conflict of interest regarding a key FBI agent on the case.
“I learned the FBI case agent in Delaware had only recently moved back to his hometown of Wilmington with his wife and family and was concerned about the consequences for him and his family if they conducted these sensitive interviews and executed a search warrant of the President Biden guest house,” Shapley said.
Republican lawmakers could press Wray on why so few witness interviews were conducted in the Hunter Biden tax case, as well as whether the bureau’s case agent in Delaware attempted to suppress the investigation in order to preserve his social standing in the town where Biden lived.
Why?
Because Swampocrats are above the law and it’s the Swamp’s job to keep it that way.
1 Like
I’m just not sure what the protected class is protecting us from. 
At ut Austin they taught that the FBIs job is blackmail and investigation. Essentially dog up dirt on politicians to control them.
They are a very authoritarian organization.
FBI Director Christopher Wray defended the agency against Republican accusations of weaponization and politicization during an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Director Wray told lawmakers where there have been issues, he’s taken immediate action to correct them. The director, appointed under the Trump administration, faced questions from lawmakers for nearly five hours. At times, exchanges turned heated on topics ranging from the Hunter Biden investigation to the internal Richmond, Virginia office memo targeting Catholics, and the warrantless searches of digital data. close
1 Like
They’re finally naming names.
An FBI agent told the House Judiciary Committee that Deputy Director Paul Abbate suggested that at least 25 FBI confidential human sources, or informants, involved in reporting to the bureau from the Jan. 6, 2021, protest should not be publicly acknowledged.
According to the whistleblower disclosure sent to the committee, Mr. Abbate notified one or more of his subordinates that the more than 25 informants were too problematic or embarrassing for the FBI to have their existence made known to the public and that the existence, activities and identities of these FBI confidential human sources should not be released.
That feels like it’s probably normal, being confidential informants and all? Would seem weird if the FBI was publicly acknowledging snitches, no? Don’t tell me the movies have been lying to me and snitches are usually publicly named by LEO.
1 Like