Rush: You’ll Never Guess What Gets the FBI Director Really Angry

[mystery-ak]

You’ll Never Guess What Gets the FBI Director Really Angry

Jan 25, 2019




RUSH: I want you to hear this. This is the FBI director on the FBI website today mere moments ago. His name is Christopher Wray.

WRAY: I know tons of you are feeling the anxiety and the emotional strain of this shutdown — and a hundred percent of you are feeling the financial strain. Making some people stay home when they don’t want to and making others show up without pay? It’s mind-boggling, it’s shortsighted, and it’s unfair. It takes a lot to get me angry, but it I’m about as angry as I’ve been in a long, long time.

RUSH: Really, Director Wray? You’re as angry as you’ve been in a long time, but what your agents did today — wearing body armor, carrying heavy automatic weapons drawn and ready to fire, waking somebody out of bed to arrest them and frog march ’em down to a court, after being indicted for process crime? So here’s the director of the FBI (impression), “It’s shortsighted. This is mind-boggling. It’s unfair. It takes a lot to get me angry, but I’m about as angry as I’ve been in a long time.”

You ought to be angry over what all of your predecessors in this department under the Obama administration have done to the system of justice, for crying out loud! This is the kind of thing… This sends me into orbit! These are the people we count on! We can’t all go be FBI director. We’re not even in charge of who’s chosen to be FBI director! This is part and parcel of trusting these institutions. We’ve always trusted them throughout our lives, throughout the life of this country. We have trusted so many of these institutions to just do it right, to just stand up — especially the FBI and the DOJ — for justice, and they all seem to be failing us profoundly.

more
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/01/25/what-gets-the-fbi-director-really-angry/

[Cyber Liberty]

The topper to this is the CNN producer who set cameras up to record the raid used to work for the FBI.  His old coworkers tipped him off.

SSDD at the premier US Police agency.

[Sanguine]

The topper to this is the CNN producer who set cameras up to record the raid used to work for the FBI.  His old coworkers tipped him off.

SSDD at the premier US Police agency.

Wow....

[Smokin Joe]

Wikipedia has a list of Secret Police organizations in the World, but one nation is lacking. I guess some keep their secrets better than others...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_secret_police_organizations

Either that, or the US just takes up too much bandwidth.

[DB]

The Clintons and Obamas have destroyed what faith I had in the FBI and DOJ. It is totally corrupt and serves only the top of the swamp in D.C. and not the people who they've sworn to.

[Smokin Joe]

The Clintons and Obamas have destroyed what faith I had in the FBI and DOJ. It is totally corrupt and serves only the top of the swamp in D.C. and not the people who they've sworn to.

It isn't up to them (the FBI) to serve anything but the law. In that they have failed miserably, egregiously, and often for personal gain. Those who have participated, by action or omission, are a stain on Law Enforcement, a blight on their profession. I would like to hope that there are those within the organization who are yet faithful to their oaths of service.

“I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

But where are the whistle blowers? Are they so in fear of their positions (or their lives) or so compromised that they are not coming forward in droves? Or is this all so successfully compartmented that some of the agency is oblivious? (Something I find incredulous).

As ever, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[DB]

It isn't up to them (the FBI) to serve anything but the law. In that they have failed miserably, egregiously, and often for personal gain. Those who have participated, by action or omission, are a stain on Law Enforcement, a blight on their profession. I would like to hope that there are those within the organization who are yet faithful to their oaths of service.

But where are the whistle blowers? Are they so in fear of their positions (or their lives) or so compromised that they are not coming forward in droves? Or is this all so successfully compartmented that some of the agency is oblivious? (Something I find incredulous).

As ever, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

When Comey swept the Clinton Email scandal under the rug that anyone else would have gone to prison for he acted as investigator, prosecutor and judge. I had some hope there would be some blow back from within the FBI. Resignations at a minimum. It didn't happen and that sealed my opinion of the FBI. Thoroughly corrupt. And since then there has been no real effort to clean it up. That was Trump's and Sessions fundamental job but they did nothing of importance towards that end. And they had the constitutional authority to so. A failure I cannot forgive.

[Smokin Joe]

When Comey swept the Clinton Email scandal under the rug that anyone else would have gone to prison for he acted as investigator, prosecutor and judge. I had some hope there would be some blow back from within the FBI. Resignations at a minimum. It didn't happen and that sealed my opinion of the FBI. Thoroughly corrupt. And since then there has been no real effort to clean it up. That was Trump's and Sessions fundamental job but they did nothing of importance towards that end. And they had the constitutional authority to so. A failure I cannot forgive.

I agree. Unfortunately, a 'dirty' policing agency is something that might be considered useful by those who are less than principled. That sword can cut both ways, and becomes a slave to the political ideologies of those within it, and those who direct it, completely divorced from the original mission of defending the Constitution and upholding the law, regardless of who breaks it.

There is only one reason to keep such around--to use it.

[DB]

I agree. Unfortunately, a 'dirty' policing agency is something that might be considered useful by those who are less than principled. That sword can cut both ways, and becomes a slave to the political ideologies of those within it, and those who direct it, completely divorced from the original mission of defending the Constitution and upholding the law, regardless of who breaks it.

There is only one reason to keep such around--to use it.

Our FBI and DOJ was one of the big differences between the USA and other countries. The rule of law was at minimum the public image. It didn't serve politicians or the powerful. Now it is in your face lawlessness where some people are more equal than others. We're morphing into something very foreign to me. A corrupt tyranny where the law is whatever they say it is and applies to whomever they say it does at their whim.

[Smokin Joe]

Our FBI and DOJ was one of the big differences between the USA and other countries. The rule of law was at minimum the public image. It didn't serve politicians or the powerful. Now it is in your face lawlessness where some people are more equal than others. We're morphing into something very foreign to me. A corrupt tyranny where the law is whatever they say it is and applies to whomever they say it does at their whim.

Obama got his "fundamental transformation"....

[bigheadfred]

I agree. Unfortunately, a 'dirty' policing agency is something that might be considered useful by those who are less than principled. That sword can cut both ways, and becomes a slave to the political ideologies of those within it, and those who direct it, completely divorced from the original mission of defending the Constitution and upholding the law, regardless of who breaks it.

There is only one reason to keep such around--to use it.

Like CAF-Civil Asset Forfeiture of any land deemed necessary to build a wall.

[DB]

Like CAF-Civil Asset Forfeiture of any land deemed necessary to build a wall.

I'm under the impression that the border has a 60' easement controlled by the federal government. It is an international border. Why isn't that enough to build a wall?

[Smokin Joe]

Like CAF-Civil Asset Forfeiture of any land deemed necessary to build a wall.

Even the Feebies and other Feds would have trouble with CIvil Asset FOrfeiture.

Unfortunately, there remains the concept of eminent domain.

Just like snapping up right of way for the Interstates.

[bigheadfred]

Even the Feebies and other Feds would have trouble with CIvil Asset FOrfeiture.

Unfortunately, there remains the concept of eminent domain.

Just like snapping up right of way for the Interstates.

A corrupt FBI working for you wouldn't have a problem with CAF.

[bigheadfred]

I'm under the impression that the border has a 60' easement controlled by the federal government. It is an international border. Why isn't that enough to build a wall?

That would be enough for a wall. But not enough to build it. A logistics issue. A concrete wall would take a lot of gravel and water. And you would need staging areas.

I don't know the lay of the land down there. So resources like gravel and water become highly relevant. Especially over the distance involved.  Identification and access to areas that have one or both would necessitate use of much more land than a 60-foot strip.

@Smokin Joe

[Sanguine]

That would be enough for a wall. But not enough to build it. A logistics issue. A concrete wall would take a lot of gravel and water. And you would need staging areas.

I don't know the lay of the land down there. So resources like gravel and water become highly relevant. Especially over the distance involved.  Identification and access to areas that have one or both would necessitate use of much more land than a 60-foot strip.

@Smokin Joe

Bottom line: it could be done were there the will to do it.

[bigheadfred]

Bottom line: it could be done were there the will to do it.

“Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right.” Henry Ford

[Cyber Liberty]

Bottom line: it could be done were there the will to do it.

That's the will of the DeeCee government, as opposed to the will of the people.  The people of the border states are sick of the carnage, while the people in DeeCee can only see the illicit benefits of letting it continue.

[Smokin Joe]

That would be enough for a wall. But not enough to build it. A logistics issue. A concrete wall would take a lot of gravel and water. And you would need staging areas.

I don't know the lay of the land down there. So resources like gravel and water become highly relevant. Especially over the distance involved.  Identification and access to areas that have one or both would necessitate use of much more land than a 60-foot strip.

@Smokin Joe

Likely what materials could be sourced locally would be purchased from contractors or suppliers there, or mined locally, on federal land, if need be. While that would take more than the Roosevelt Reservation (Teddy, not FDR), that resource development in terms of aggregate and other materials, and access road, could either fit (the road would, and would be needed to patrol the wall and for access), or be developed on private or even public land. That would mean a lot of trucking, much the same as any road project, only this one would have an additional wall on the south side. Since part of that, at least, would consist of steel slats, those materials would have to be shipped in, likely by truck.
Considering we are the nation who built the transcontinental railroad, the Trans Alaska pipeline, and the Panama Canal, among other projects, I'd say it is do-able, but the design of the foundation, and the wall itself would have to adapt to the substrate. The Dems hate the idea because not only would it provide (even more) employment, but a project of that magnitude could be a boost to a lot of red state economies. Plus, that'd be 5 billion they didn't get to skim.

[bigheadfred]

Likely what materials could be sourced locally would be purchased from contractors or suppliers there, or mined locally, on federal land, if need be. While that would take more than the Roosevelt Reservation (Teddy, not FDR), that resource development in terms of aggregate and other materials, and access road, could either fit (the road would, and would be needed to patrol the wall and for access), or be developed on private or even public land. That would mean a lot of trucking, much the same as any road project, only this one would have an additional wall on the south side. Since part of that, at least, would consist of steel slats, those materials would have to be shipped in, likely by truck.
Considering we are the nation who built the transcontinental railroad, the Trans Alaska pipeline, and the Panama Canal, among other projects, I'd say it is do-able, but the design of the foundation, and the wall itself would have to adapt to the substrate. The Dems hate the idea because not only would it provide (even more) employment, but a project of that magnitude could be a boost to a lot of red state economies. Plus, that'd be 5 billion they didn't get to skim.

The substrate could be dealt with, with footers, while preformed wall concrete parts could be shipped in. That is a lot of trucking.

[Smokin Joe]

The substrate could be dealt with, with footers, while preformed wall concrete parts could be shipped in. That is a lot of trucking.

Cheaper than helicopters....and the access road would need to be built for patrols anyway.

[Sanguine]

Here's a photo of the bridge at McAllen:



Helps you see the lay of the land.

[Smokin Joe]

A corrupt FBI working for you wouldn't have a problem with CAF.

CAF is for stealing stuff, Fred. Cars, boats, cash (especially cash, any amount large or small), guns, airplanes, but mainly stuff. They get the occasional house, but real estate for a project like this (above and beyond the Roosevelt Reservation) would be either purchased by agreement or taken through eminent domain, and the owner paid what the government declared the property to be worth.

Admittedly, if you are a rancher, water access makes the land valuable, and some way to ensure that access continued (or the ranch will have serious problems) would have to be found. No, the answer isn't perfectly simple, but we know what the problem is.

[Sanguine]

CAF is for stealing stuff, Fred. Cars, boats, cash (especially cash, any amount large or small), guns, airplanes, but mainly stuff. They get the occasional house, but real estate for a project like this (above and beyond the Roosevelt Reservation) would be either purchased by agreement or taken through eminent domain, and the owner paid what the government declared the property to be worth.

Admittedly, if you are a rancher, water access makes the land valuable, and some way to ensure that access continued (or the ranch will have serious problems) would have to be found. No, the answer isn't perfectly simple, but we know what the problem is.

The same way they provide water for land not right next to the river.