The Mar-a-lago home invader is stepping down at the end of Biden's term.

Curious if he's house shopping in non-extradition countries at the moment.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-director-chris-wray-resigns

The Mar-a-lago home invader is stepping down at the end of Biden's term.

Curious if he's house shopping in non-extradition countries at the moment.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-director-chris-wray-resigns

He's job shopping for his next gig before his resume has to say, "Fired!"   

I hope any security clearance is taken away.  And he faces charges for a weaponized FBI.

I hope any security clearance is taken away.  And he faces charges for a weaponized FBI.

A clearance must be "held" (managed) by an authorized FSO -- Facility Security Officer.  His is managed at the FBI.

There's not only a cost associated with managing clearances, but also a risk.  Federal laws were passed that require facilities to limit clearances to the minimum number required to perform the mission.  Fewer people with access = lower risk to national security.

So, once he leaves the FBI, he will no longer be under their FSO's list of cleared employees.

What normally happens if the departing employee will require a clearance in their new job is a transfer takes place.  Clearances have an expiration date at which time they have to apply for a renewal investigation.  Transfers are easier as the clearance is still effective.  If he doesn't transfer the clearance at the time of departure, it will likely be terminated by the FBI's FSO upon Wray's last day as an employee -- after any leave or other paid days off are either exhausted or paid out.

If he's subject to being recalled to assist in matters he was part of, the gov't could extend his FBI clearance for a specific period.  If they go beyond a year or more, I'd be surprised though not shocked. 

All depends on what his follow-on plans are.  There are rules about what types of jobs high level gov't employees can take within a given amount of time after leaving to avoid conflicts.  He might take a lower level job to maintain his clearance until that restriction period passes.

At least Melania’s panty drawer is a little safer than yesterday.

Well, well. What timing. Damning report just came out today that it was a Fedsurrection after all.

How much are conspiracy theorists up now? I stopped counting.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/conspiracy-fact-ig-report-confirms-fbi-had-dozens-informants-jan-6-crowd

A clearance must be "held" (managed) by an authorized FSO -- Facility Security Officer.  His is managed at the FBI.

There's not only a cost associated with managing clearances, but also a risk.  Federal laws were passed that require facilities to limit clearances to the minimum number required to perform the mission.  Fewer people with access = lower risk to national security.

So, once he leaves the FBI, he will no longer be under their FSO's list of cleared employees.

What normally happens if the departing employee will require a clearance in their new job is a transfer takes place.  Clearances have an expiration date at which time they have to apply for a renewal investigation.  Transfers are easier as the clearance is still effective.  If he doesn't transfer the clearance at the time of departure, it will likely be terminated by the FBI's FSO upon Wray's last day as an employee -- after any leave or other paid days off are either exhausted or paid out.

If he's subject to being recalled to assist in matters he was part of, the gov't could extend his FBI clearance for a specific period.  If they go beyond a year or more, I'd be surprised though not shocked. 

All depends on what his follow-on plans are.  There are rules about what types of jobs high level gov't employees can take within a given amount of time after leaving to avoid conflicts.  He might take a lower level job to maintain his clearance until that restriction period passes.

This is why i hope its totally removed. So he cannot work in any private sector like how spook's do.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Well, well. What timing. Damning report just came out today that it was a Fedsurrection after all.

How much are conspiracy theorists up now? I stopped counting.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/conspiracy-fact-ig-report-confirms-fbi-had-dozens-informants-jan-6-crowd

Apparently that's still 'as far as they know."  There were CIs there for the FBI and many other agencies they didn't coordinate with PLUS some that showed up of their own volition. 

That article says, "None of the 23 were found to have engaged in illegal activity."

The number I heard was there were 26 operatives on site  17 of those operatives committed illegal acts while only 9 did not.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/doj-watchdog-says-fbi-had-26-confidential-sources-in-dc-for-jan-6-riot-but-no-evidence-of-undercover-agents/ar-AA1vKWiK

The spin being given to this bombshell is the FBI had no undercover employees in the crowds or at the capitol protest.  They just relied on people who spy for them, some of whom are paid, to observe and report on those the FBI is interested in.   

The question becomes, if the majority of these Confidential Human Resources were there without the FBI or any other agency requesting they go, then why were they not also arrested for doing what 1300+ others did?  And the big question is whether those individuals incited any of the illegal acts using their influence on other members in the groups they spy on?

This is why i hope its totally removed. So he cannot work in any private sector like how spook's do.

He's a lowlife swamp critter, so i'm sure he'll be able to keep it depending on where he lands after the FBI.

If the evidence hasn't been completely destroyed, maybe his next job will be making license plates?

None of the informants were charged for entering restricted areas or the capitol even though they did.

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/ray-epps-announces-resignation-from-fbi

https://babylonbee.com/news/ray-epps-announces-resignation-from-fbi

They could rewrite that for a few dozen positions as the rats begin abandoning ship.

i also think it was a lot more than 26, they said they knew that other Field Offices had undercover agents there, some agents were there on their on time unofficially, some undercover PD officers (Virginia, MD, Wash DC), and so they didn't know how many undercover LEO were there overall.  I think a lot higher than 26.  I'm thinking triple digits.  We'll never know.

The Mar-a-lago home invader is stepping down at the end of Biden's term.

Curious if he's house shopping in non-extradition countries at the moment.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-director-chris-wray-resigns

Why would he need to worry about criminal charges?
Is there evidence he did anything criminal?

Why would he need to worry about criminal charges?
Is there evidence he did anything criminal?

Swooooossshhhhhh

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why would he need to worry about criminal charges?
Is there evidence he did anything criminal?

Maybe because he lied before congress on Multiple occasions.  One instance would be when he was asked how many people working with or for the FBI attended the J6 protests?  He kept saying he did not know and had to get back to them after the hearing, which he never did.  It took the recent IG report to tell us there were more than 2 dozen informants, some of them paid.  He knew the question needed an answer, and that it would be asked in hearings until it's answered.  Yet, he never did.

Since 0 informants were arrested and charged, unlike the other protesters standing right next to them, it's obvious they knew who the informants were who attended.  Otherwise, they would not have been treated differently.

If a bowling ball rolls down the bowling lane, do you have to see someone roll it, or do you deduce "I know someone rolled it?"  We know the number of people acting as agents of law enforcement attended. 

The number has now been released.  Therefore, the number has been knowable this whole time in hearing after hearing, but Wray avoided answering at all -- ever.  My deductive reasoning says, even if he didn't know the first time asked, he should, and could have, have ascertained the number after he told Congress he would give it to them after each hearing.

Common sense.

Maybe because he lied before congress on Multiple occasions.  One instance would be when he was asked how many people working with or for the FBI attended the J6 protests?  He kept saying he did not know and had to get back to them after the hearing, which he never did.  It took the recent IG report to tell us there were more than 2 dozen informants, some of them paid.  He knew the question needed an answer, and that it would be asked in hearings until it's answered.  Yet, he never did.

Since 0 informants were arrested and charged, unlike the other protesters standing right next to them, it's obvious they knew who the informants were who attended.  Otherwise, they would not have been treated differently.

If a bowling ball rolls down the bowling lane, do you have to see someone roll it, or do you deduce "I know someone rolled it?"  We know the number of people acting as agents of law enforcement attended. 

The number has now been released.  Therefore, the number has been knowable this whole time in hearing after hearing, but Wray avoided answering at all -- ever.  My deductive reasoning says, even if he didn't know the first time asked, he should, and could have, have ascertained the number after he told Congress he would give it to them after each hearing.

Common sense.

Failing to get back to the congressional committee about a statistical question is certainly not perjury. Sure, it would be nice if he got back to congress with some stats but that would never amount to a criminal charge.

That has nothing to do with the allegation of him being a "Mar-A-Lago hom invader" either.

Why would he need to worry about criminal charges?
Is there evidence he did anything criminal?

He helped create the riot on January 6 in order to certify a stolen election that would have otherwise been contested on the House floor

Not sure but I think that counts as treason

Failing to get back to the congressional committee about a statistical question is certainly not perjury. Sure, it would be nice if he got back to congress with some stats but that would never amount to a criminal charge.

That has nothing to do with the allegation of him being a "Mar-A-Lago hom invader" either.

When someone says they don't know an answer, then fails to follow up as promised, that's contempt of Congress.  The numbers were obviously known, but he refused to provide that to Congress.  It took an external agency to report the number he had every opportunity to ascertain and provide.

When he said he didn't know, he was hiding behind an assumed plausible deniability.  Since that other agency found it out, there's a more reasonable assumption that Wray lied about not knowing -- he was just stonewalling because the answer was bad for the FBI and himself.