Shipwreckedcrew Profile picture
Jul 20, 2021 5 tweets 1 min read Read on X
For a long time I've noted that the FBI changed its hiring priorities and practices when Obama was elected. This guy was hired in 2011 when he was 30. Image
Because of the changed priorities, the FBI relaxed the standards for appearance and off-hours behavior in order to accommodate "lifestyle" choices among the now-prioritized recruiting practices.
When a fed. agency relaxes standards for certain demographics in an effort to attract and hire more from that demographic, it has to relax the standards for all.

That is how you end up with this guy carrying an FBI Badge when that would have been impossible prior to 2008.
Up until about 6 years ago, FBI agents were not allowed to have a second job. FBI agents are paid to be available 24/7/365. A second job complicates that availability. This guy apparently operated a gym on land he owned, and served as a personal trainer.
These are the kinds of changes that have accelerated the pace of retirement by agents hired in 1990s.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Shipwreckedcrew

Shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

Mar 20
Again -- I said the approach contemplated by DOJ is legally illiterate, but it is not going to stop them from trying.

The adovcate one side of the dispute. There are certain circumstances in some cases where consecutive sentencing is appropriate. I do not think these cases fit.
These are not novel issues or novel approaches.

If SCOTUS throws out 1512 that means DOJ has been wrong from Day 1 and all the Judges but 1 have also been wrong.

The Brock decision told all the Judges but 1 they were wrong on the 1512 enhancements.
That is how the appeals process is supposed to function.

And when DOJ and the lower court have been told they've erred, their response is not supposed to end up with a work-around that gets them back to the same place that their errors took them.

DOJ may want that -- too bad.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 20
For those kvetching over the DOJ position on possible consecutive sentences if Sec. 1512(c)(2) is thrown out by the Supreme Court, having some understanding of how this process actually plays out -- regardless of what DOJ claims it is going to ask for -- is important.
The idea that "Sentence XX" is appropriate regardless of what happens with Fischer is legally illiterate -- not a first for DOJ in these cases and I've said that in writing.

The FIRST obligation of a Judge at sentencing is "Get the Guideline calculation correct."
Where Sec. 1512 was the offense of conviction that drove the Guideline calculation, that means the whole process starts over.

If the Guideline Calculation with a Sec. 1512 conviction is 41-51 months - very common - and w/out Sec. 1512 it is 24-30 months on a different offense...
Read 9 tweets
Mar 20
What happened in Texas:
District Judge in Texas issued injunction.

Appeals Court issued "administrative" stay. Temporary - NOT ON THE MERITS.

Biden Admin appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said "We don't mess with Admin stays -- we'll wait for more substance from Appeals court.
Appeals Court removed Admin stay -- meaning District Judge order back in effect, but sets hearing TODAY for to decide what to do next on the substance.

It might put the stay back into effect with more substance, i.e., not an "Admin Stay."
This is why you should not pay attention to non-legal sources who read too much into every little court decision on procedure.

GENERALLY, Courts prefer to allow the status quo to remain in place before they hear a case on the merits and determine the outcome.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 19
This article is crap and just an extension of your publication of crap.
Why would Trump/Meadows offer Bowser 10,000 troop for the Capitol? The Mayor doesn't protect the Capitol.
Of course it was for security on the streets of DC - that was her responsibility.
There had been violent clashes between protesters and counter-protesters on Nov. 14 (Million MAGA March) and Dec. 12 (Jericho Rally). The police were outnumbered in both and had trouble controlling them. So Trump is offering her more manpower for 1/6 expecting a bigger rally.
It is pure BS to convert this issue into a claim that 10,000 troops were offered/not offered for the Capitol -- unless you are talking about the Capital.

Look up the difference -- there is one and it is important.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 16
You are simply clueless.
A (c)(3) is a "charity." That means contributions are tax deductible. With that comes scrutiny from state regulators. So (c)(3) groups must file tax data in every state. That's why they do audited financial statements -- which cost money to CPAs.
That's why they have attorney expenses -- to make sure they are in compliance with IRS regulations.

That's why charities have CEOs -- who get paid because being the CEO of a charity is job.
I do not know of ANY OTHER J6 "support" group that is a registered (c)(3) charity with the IRS.

(c)(4) "social welfare organizations" are not charities.

Your local soccer league is likely a (c)(4).

All it means is that it is a "non-profit".
Read 5 tweets
Mar 16
Pres. Trump has publicly endorsed the PFP and the efforts of Cynthia Hughes. He has repeatedly welcomed her to events he has organized.
That is the imprimatur of legitimacy.
All the scammers want that so badly but they do not have it.
They attack the PFP to undermine it.
The scammers are conning the public that is willing to donate money on behalf of J6 defendants and their families in order to divert donations away from those who are actually helping in meaningful ways and towards the scammers.
Yes -- some scammers are spending some money on lawyers.

But the scammers pick the lawyers for the defendants, as you have the same handful of attorneys representing the defendants being helped by the scammers.

Just happened in a case of mine last week.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(