Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Many Democrats are good at this, but Wray is among the best. The method is this: When you are caught in misconduct, malfeasance or lawbreaking, and you want to deny it, but without incurring further consequences for lying, you figure out a way to phrase the denial, so that it covers conduct that you actually did not do, but which does not absolve you of the accusation levied.
Here, Wray takes advantage of the unfortunate double meaning of the word "agent." In the FBI, salaried law enforcement officers are called "FBI Agents" and the civilians that they use as informants or operators are called "confidential human sources." In the CIA and in Military Intelligence, which is what I'm familiar with, an "agent" is an informant or operator paid on an ad hoc basis, but never trusted with any knowledge not absolutely required for the job.
So, Wray tells the congressman under oath that "I'm not sure there were 'undercover agents,' uh . . . " Here he play acts being perplexed by the question. When pressed about how he could not know that, and asked about both "agents" and "assetts," he looks down guiltily and offers a word salad meaning roughly "I ain't tellin'."
He has also done this by saying rather huffily, "If you are suggesting that the violence that happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents, the answer is ‘no, it was not’ and to suggest otherwise is a disservice to our hardworking, dedicated law enforcement professionals,”
Yeah, no one is suggesting the Jan 6 riots were planned at FBI headquarters. There were plenty of warnings days in advance that their would be protests and that the protests might get out of hand. Obviously, the FBI had non-sworn assetts in the capitol, or Wray would just say, "heck no!" when asked about them. Question is what were they supposed to do and what did they actually do? Were they supposed to prevent or slow down the riot? If so how, and why was it ineffective? Were they wearing Trump t-shirts, carrying weapons, filming it, or what? Why were civilians placed in such danger? Was there a plan if one of their assets were to be gunned down by Capitol Police?
Until the FBI comes clean on those questions, don't ask me to pull my forelock and blame Trump for "inciting an insurrection."
Bill Clinton introduced us to this Democratic method of truth hiding when he said "there is no improper relationship," meaning apparently, that Monica was not slobbering his knob at that very moment, not that he had never shown her his Willie and had her service him. It did not fool anybody, but few Democrats cared anyway.
Here, Wray takes advantage of the unfortunate double meaning of the word "agent." In the FBI, salaried law enforcement officers are called "FBI Agents" and the civilians that they use as informants or operators are called "confidential human sources." In the CIA and in Military Intelligence, which is what I'm familiar with, an "agent" is an informant or operator paid on an ad hoc basis, but never trusted with any knowledge not absolutely required for the job.
So, Wray tells the congressman under oath that "I'm not sure there were 'undercover agents,' uh . . . " Here he play acts being perplexed by the question. When pressed about how he could not know that, and asked about both "agents" and "assetts," he looks down guiltily and offers a word salad meaning roughly "I ain't tellin'."
He has also done this by saying rather huffily, "If you are suggesting that the violence that happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents, the answer is ‘no, it was not’ and to suggest otherwise is a disservice to our hardworking, dedicated law enforcement professionals,”
Yeah, no one is suggesting the Jan 6 riots were planned at FBI headquarters. There were plenty of warnings days in advance that their would be protests and that the protests might get out of hand. Obviously, the FBI had non-sworn assetts in the capitol, or Wray would just say, "heck no!" when asked about them. Question is what were they supposed to do and what did they actually do? Were they supposed to prevent or slow down the riot? If so how, and why was it ineffective? Were they wearing Trump t-shirts, carrying weapons, filming it, or what? Why were civilians placed in such danger? Was there a plan if one of their assets were to be gunned down by Capitol Police?
Until the FBI comes clean on those questions, don't ask me to pull my forelock and blame Trump for "inciting an insurrection."
Bill Clinton introduced us to this Democratic method of truth hiding when he said "there is no improper relationship," meaning apparently, that Monica was not slobbering his knob at that very moment, not that he had never shown her his Willie and had her service him. It did not fool anybody, but few Democrats cared anyway.
