A quick look at his bio here and I find out: "He is currently a litigation partner for the private law firm King & Spalding."
This is it people! Trump is putting a litigator in charge of the FBI and there's only one reason he'd do that. Trump's expecting the FBI to be involved in a lot of litigation coming up here in a bit.
What's that? Don't you need evidence first?
Good question. Yes and there's a mountain of evidence already. The FBI is swimming in evidence. The only problem with the FBI were the two shit bird Slow Walkers who were in charge of it.
Huge sigh of relief over here. I was worried for a while there.
Trump is putting a litigator in charge of the FBI and there's only one reason he'd do that. Trump's expecting the FBI to be involved in a lot of litigation coming up here in a bit.
Litigation usually means civil lawsuits. It's not what the head of the FBI does.
In fact the head of the FBI doesn't go to criminal court either. He is the head law enforcement officer, but it's prosecutors in the Department of Justice who make the cases and prosecute them.
He won't be doing any of that.
Also James Comey was a litigator too. He got his law degree from University of Chicago which is not too shabby. He worked as lawyer for the in the DOJ as a US Attorney and Deputy Attorney General and in private practice.
"James Comey brings a wealth of talent and experience to Lockheed Martin, and in particular exceptional litigation expertise and leadership skills," said Thomas C. Greer, a company spokesman. "He also has valuable insight into commercial litigation, having been a partner in a private law firm."
It's not uncommon for the head of the FBI to be a lawyer, but it's an executive position. You are hired on your ability to manage.
Every appointed head of the FBI has been a lawyer. The only two who weren't were "actiing" directors: Clyde Tolson who served like a day and another who was an accountant and served like three months.
"It's not what the head of the FBI does. In fact the head of the FBI doesn't go to criminal court either."
Of course I know that AreWeSure. You just built a Straw Man. You're angry that I implied arrests are imminent but you couldn't really attack the fact Wray sounds pretty familiar with the inside of a courtroom. So what do you do? You twist my argument to make it look like I said Christopher Wray was the one who would be doing the prosecuting which is obviously absurd on the face of it and shame on you for implying I didn't know that. Trump put Wray there so Jeff Sessions can get the best evidence possible for use in a court case. Christopher Wray is the polar opposite of James Comey who spent his tenure at the FBI training for the Olympic Slow Walk.
People in your position rely on the Straw Man a lot because you have no argument. The Straw Man allows you to make up an argument and still be relevant. Make sense? Good because after the first Straw Man you built another one about James Comey being a litigator before heading the FBI. The Straw Man is you left out he was on the board of Lockheed and HSBC. Why would you have left those out AreWeSure? Oh right because he wasn't a litigator while at Lockheed or HSBC. I get it.
But something doesn't sit right now does it AreWeSure. Lockheed along with Boeing make up a large portion of the Militry Industrial Complex. And HSBC is well known as the money launderer to the 1%. HSBC has been caught numerous times cleaning drug money, skirting all sorts of tax laws and on and on. You really can't NOT mention Comey's tenure there with respect to the FBI Directorship for obvious reasons. James Comey had a serious conflict of interest as head of the FBI. It's HIGHLY suspect that someone on the board of Lockheed and HSBC would ever be considered to lead the FBI given the distinct possibility they'd be called in at some point to investigate the TRILLIONS spent on pork and proceeds down in DC. You could even call Comey heading the FBI a joke. And it was just as bad under McCabe. He failed to disclose a $650,000 given to his wife. That's another egregious conflict of interest you seem incapable of detecting.
Don't worry AreWeSure you're not alone in your denial. I just finished a conversation with my father about sort of this very issue. You both sound identical. You just can't seem to let yourself believe rich White Anglo Saxon Protestants, some Catholics and Jews with a few Muslims thrown in for good measure could ever do something wrong.
Well they did do something wrong. And some at the very top will be arrested and will go to jail. There is real evidence and Bill and Hillary Clinton are in Deep Wasserman Schitz. The front runner is the Clintons relationship to the drug maker in “the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation’s largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company”. And connected isn't the right word. A better description would be "tied at the hip".
It's almost sunrise. The first few rays of sun light are just lighting up the night sky and a few birds have started chirping albeit groggily. Judgement Day Jr is upon us and justice is nigh.
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who built the Straw Man implying I didn't know what the head of the FBI does. And you also seem upset I believe Wray seems to have been chosen for his litigation experience. After all while heading the Criminal Division of the Bush Justice Department, Wray oversaw prominent fraud investigations, including Enron which ding ding ding is a similar sized fraud case if you believe The Clinton Foundation may have done something wrong as I do. Long story short Wray has put real white color criminals in jail whereas James Comey gave Mark Rich 100 lashes with a wet noodle and then locked up Martha Stuart for cooking that noodle. No, that was just a joke but I had to put it in there.
Who's a bigger criminal AreWeSure:
Ken Lay vs Martha Stuart hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm
Jeffrey Skilling vs Martha Stuart hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm
Sorry AreWeSure but you seem angry to me. You're frustrated people are questioning the party line so my gut tells me you're angry at that. In your world the FBI is above reproach. In your world James Comey's time at Lockheed and HSBC has no bearing on his lack of vigor investigating Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation. There's nothing to see there, move along.
But there IS something to see here isn't there AreWeSure. I asked whether you believed the CIA has ever been involved in running drugs. You didn't respond. You'd rather not go there. Why is that?
Why would it be a stupid question? The CIA has been caught running drugs in the past. Why is it stupid to consider evidence they may have done it again?
view the rest of the comments →
DarkMath ago
HALLELUJAH
A quick look at his bio here and I find out: "He is currently a litigation partner for the private law firm King & Spalding."
This is it people! Trump is putting a litigator in charge of the FBI and there's only one reason he'd do that. Trump's expecting the FBI to be involved in a lot of litigation coming up here in a bit.
What's that? Don't you need evidence first?
Good question. Yes and there's a mountain of evidence already. The FBI is swimming in evidence. The only problem with the FBI were the two shit bird Slow Walkers who were in charge of it.
Huge sigh of relief over here. I was worried for a while there.
:-D
RweSure ago
How did this get so many upvoats?
Litigation usually means civil lawsuits. It's not what the head of the FBI does. In fact the head of the FBI doesn't go to criminal court either. He is the head law enforcement officer, but it's prosecutors in the Department of Justice who make the cases and prosecute them.
He won't be doing any of that.
Also James Comey was a litigator too. He got his law degree from University of Chicago which is not too shabby. He worked as lawyer for the in the DOJ as a US Attorney and Deputy Attorney General and in private practice.
It's not uncommon for the head of the FBI to be a lawyer, but it's an executive position. You are hired on your ability to manage. Every appointed head of the FBI has been a lawyer. The only two who weren't were "actiing" directors: Clyde Tolson who served like a day and another who was an accountant and served like three months.
DarkMath ago
"It's not what the head of the FBI does. In fact the head of the FBI doesn't go to criminal court either."
Of course I know that AreWeSure. You just built a Straw Man. You're angry that I implied arrests are imminent but you couldn't really attack the fact Wray sounds pretty familiar with the inside of a courtroom. So what do you do? You twist my argument to make it look like I said Christopher Wray was the one who would be doing the prosecuting which is obviously absurd on the face of it and shame on you for implying I didn't know that. Trump put Wray there so Jeff Sessions can get the best evidence possible for use in a court case. Christopher Wray is the polar opposite of James Comey who spent his tenure at the FBI training for the Olympic Slow Walk.
People in your position rely on the Straw Man a lot because you have no argument. The Straw Man allows you to make up an argument and still be relevant. Make sense? Good because after the first Straw Man you built another one about James Comey being a litigator before heading the FBI. The Straw Man is you left out he was on the board of Lockheed and HSBC. Why would you have left those out AreWeSure? Oh right because he wasn't a litigator while at Lockheed or HSBC. I get it.
But something doesn't sit right now does it AreWeSure. Lockheed along with Boeing make up a large portion of the Militry Industrial Complex. And HSBC is well known as the money launderer to the 1%. HSBC has been caught numerous times cleaning drug money, skirting all sorts of tax laws and on and on. You really can't NOT mention Comey's tenure there with respect to the FBI Directorship for obvious reasons. James Comey had a serious conflict of interest as head of the FBI. It's HIGHLY suspect that someone on the board of Lockheed and HSBC would ever be considered to lead the FBI given the distinct possibility they'd be called in at some point to investigate the TRILLIONS spent on pork and proceeds down in DC. You could even call Comey heading the FBI a joke. And it was just as bad under McCabe. He failed to disclose a $650,000 given to his wife. That's another egregious conflict of interest you seem incapable of detecting.
Don't worry AreWeSure you're not alone in your denial. I just finished a conversation with my father about sort of this very issue. You both sound identical. You just can't seem to let yourself believe rich White Anglo Saxon Protestants, some Catholics and Jews with a few Muslims thrown in for good measure could ever do something wrong.
Well they did do something wrong. And some at the very top will be arrested and will go to jail. There is real evidence and Bill and Hillary Clinton are in Deep Wasserman Schitz. The front runner is the Clintons relationship to the drug maker in “the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation’s largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company”. And connected isn't the right word. A better description would be "tied at the hip".
http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/u-s-attorney-for-the-district-of-maryland-rod-j-rosenstein/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/exclusive-clinton-foundation-aids-program-distributed-watered-down-drugs-to-third-world-countries/
It's almost sunrise. The first few rays of sun light are just lighting up the night sky and a few birds have started chirping albeit groggily. Judgement Day Jr is upon us and justice is nigh.
:-D
RweSure ago
Angry?
You drunk today? Why would these imaginary arrests get me angry? They are completely fictional. It's like being afraid of a cartoon lion.
I was baffled that you were surprised the head of the FBI had a legal career. Cuz they all have.
You still don't know what the head of the FBI does, do you?
The quote about him being a litigator was when he was hired at Lockheed. Not my words.
And did you miss that he was a prosecutor. My point was he an extensive legal career.
You still don't know how the FBi works and now you're making false claims. And of course that money did not go to her.
Angry? Try bemused.
DarkMath ago
"Why would these imaginary arrests get me angry?"
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who built the Straw Man implying I didn't know what the head of the FBI does. And you also seem upset I believe Wray seems to have been chosen for his litigation experience. After all while heading the Criminal Division of the Bush Justice Department, Wray oversaw prominent fraud investigations, including Enron which ding ding ding is a similar sized fraud case if you believe The Clinton Foundation may have done something wrong as I do. Long story short Wray has put real white color criminals in jail whereas James Comey gave Mark Rich 100 lashes with a wet noodle and then locked up Martha Stuart for cooking that noodle. No, that was just a joke but I had to put it in there.
Who's a bigger criminal AreWeSure:
Ken Lay vs Martha Stuart hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm
Jeffrey Skilling vs Martha Stuart hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm
Sorry AreWeSure but you seem angry to me. You're frustrated people are questioning the party line so my gut tells me you're angry at that. In your world the FBI is above reproach. In your world James Comey's time at Lockheed and HSBC has no bearing on his lack of vigor investigating Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation. There's nothing to see there, move along.
But there IS something to see here isn't there AreWeSure. I asked whether you believed the CIA has ever been involved in running drugs. You didn't respond. You'd rather not go there. Why is that?
:-D
RweSure ago
Actually you asked if I thought they were running drugs up to this day. And I thought it was a stupid question
DarkMath ago
"And I thought it was a stupid question"
Why would it be a stupid question? The CIA has been caught running drugs in the past. Why is it stupid to consider evidence they may have done it again?