Trump Nominates Lawyer To Lead FBI (bbc.com) 368
President Donald Trump announced via Twitter on Wednesday that he has chosen a new FBI director. Trump says he's nominating Christopher A. Wray for the position. He described Wray as "a man of impeccable credentials." From a report: Donald Trump says he is nominating lawyer Christopher A Wray who served under George W Bush. Wray more recently represented the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, during the investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case, in which two of Christie's former aides were convicted of plotting to close lanes of the bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who wouldn't endorse the governor. Christie, who has informally advised the president, was not charged in the case.
Wray would succeed James Comey, whom Trump fired last month amid mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia. The announcement comes a day ahead of Comey's scheduled appearance before the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday where he is expected to touch on his firing and claims that Trump asked him to soft-pedal the investigation into former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Wray would succeed James Comey, whom Trump fired last month amid mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia. The announcement comes a day ahead of Comey's scheduled appearance before the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday where he is expected to touch on his firing and claims that Trump asked him to soft-pedal the investigation into former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The best thing that happened to Comey... (Score:4, Funny)
...was being fired by Trump.
Before being fired: OMG COMEY CONSPIRED WITH TRUMP TO KILL HILLARY'S PRESIDENCY!!
After being fired: COMEY IS A BEING OF PURE ENERGY FROM A HIGHER PLANE OF EXISTENCE WHO CAME HERE TO BRING US PEACE AND LOVE.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best thing that happened to Comey... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. The only people who think that liberals like Comey are conservatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I dislike Comey. I am happy that he was fired. I am, however, unhappy that he was fired because he refused to end the investigation into Russia. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't like Ted Cruz, but I wouldn't be happy if someone shot him. I disliked Saddam Hussein, but deposing him was one of the stupidest things we could have done, (Even worse than sucking up to the Saudis while whining about our NATO allies.)
I am unhappy that a government official is trying to meddle in an investigation into
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So are you saying that Clinton's emails, and thus classified information, wasn't actually on Anthony Wiener's laptop, and there was no due diligence required on Comey's part in notifying the oversight committee?
No, nevermind. 'faking an email scandal' is just the typical weasel words used to hand wave away pertinent facts and to reinforce the false narrative that there was no problem in Clinton's handling of federal records.
Did it ever occur to you that If the leadership of the DNC hadn't conspired to run
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, of course it has. Frequently. In the run-up to the nomination, when it was clear the Hillary would win, one of the big problems I had with her was that she is probably the most disliked woman in the country, perhaps occasionally trading off with Nancy Pelosi for that honor. It was, in my opinion, a bad idea t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, he didn't fake a scandal. He should have kept his damn mouth shut about the investigation the entire time, but he never made anything out to be salacious. It was the press that did that, in particular Fox Benghazi^W News. Hillary clearly broke the law and should have owned up to it early, to shut her critics up (good luck with that, I know). I personally feel like she should have dropped out of the race, but I recognize that isn't a popular position. Maybe the DNC should let a real liberal run for a c
Re:The best thing that happened to Comey... (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry guy, us libs arent simpletons living in a black & white world.
Thats your guy's schtick.
Our world is actually much more complicated than black & white.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure explains why so many progressives keep saying that there's no free speech problem on campuses that multiple states are now writing laws to specifically protect conservatives from progressives and liberals. Man, someone should let Evergreen College know post-stat, maybe then they could get back to work instead of having all the intersectional whatever's threatening white students, professors, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry guy, us libs arent simpletons living in a black & white world.
Yeah, some of us have 12-bit grayscale.
Luserz have only 50 shades.
Not only that (Score:3)
He knows many words.
Oh, this will be fun to follow (Score:2)
Also, it seems like Sessions offered Trump his resignation right before the overseas trip and he refused it: http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
Translation (Score:5, Informative)
He described Wray as "a man of impeccable credentials.
Translation: "He is loyal to Trump"
Better than Caligula (Score:4, Funny)
At least he has not appointed to his horse.
Re: (Score:3)
At least he has not appointed to his horse ... yet.
There, fixed that for you....
Re: (Score:2)
At least he has not appointed to his horse.
No, but he does have his personal bodyguard/gofer taking on official business and running around flashing the Secretary of State's personal cell phone number for everyone to see.
Appointments (Score:3)
At least he has not appointed to his horse.
He has appointed a number of horses asses though...
Lawyer (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Comey is also a lawyer, so not sure why the headline seems to suggest something special about a lawyer being nominated to lead the FBI.
https://www.britannica.com/bio... [britannica.com]
Re:Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Fucking wrong. From the FBI site:
"Educational requirements include having a four year bachelor degree from an accredited university or college. In addition to this applicants should have three years of work experience at the minimum."
No where is a law degree stated as the qualifier. I'm sure they'd prefer a law degree or a degree in "Criminal Justice" but they've got plenty of other degree-holders outside of law handling other things, like Comp. Sci/Engineering degree holders doing digital forensics.
Re: (Score:2)
FBI agents must have a law degree.
What you just said is neither true in the real world, nor is it even true in fiction. From the X-Files to Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye, I can't think of a single example that would have given you the false notion that every FBI agent has a law degree. Some certainly do, but that's true at pretty much any law enforcement organization.
Re: (Score:3)
A law degree used to be mandatory, now it's a large majority.
No and no. A law degree was never mandatory for every agent, the requirement is still in place for the positions that required it before, and it was never even a plurality across all agents, let alone a "large majority".
The FBI does require a law degree for certain positions, but only for a small fraction of the jobs for which they're hiring. The FBI's official jobs site [fbijobs.gov] lists a number of career paths for agents, including a number of specializations. Of those, only the legal specialization [fbijobs.gov] requires a law d
Saul (Score:3)
"You don't want a criminal _lawyer_... you want a _criminal_ lawyer."
- Jessie Pinkman
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Informative)
"mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia."
Reminder, no such ties have been shown to actually exist.
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Ehmm? There are plenty of evidence and the administration have even acknowledged it and fired the people. What open is whether Trump was aware of it, or if it was only his most trusted and most prominent leaders of his campaign that colluded with the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
"mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia."
Reminder, no such ties have been shown to actually exist.
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Ehmm? There are plenty of evidence and the administration have even acknowledged it and fired the people. What open is whether Trump was aware of it, or if it was only his most trusted and most prominent leaders of his campaign that colluded with the Russians.
Oh, Trump was aware of the collusion and the Russian election meddling in his favour, he would have to be suffering from a severe case of Altsheimers in order not to be aware of it. The question is: was Trump clever enough to separate himself from the meddling thoroughly enough by acting only through loyal minions that his complicity cannot be conclusively proven? l certainly hope not... and if it is proven he himself had a direct hand in the DNC hack and all the rest of it, it should be fun watching the wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No there isn't. This is just a deranged narrative to avoid personal responsibility by the losers. Anyone that stepped outside the liberal bubble could see this. Flyover country that's constantly insulted by liberals doesn't need any help from the Russians to hate Hillary.
Pushing her was as stupid and arrogant. it was the same kind of arrogance the Republicans showed when they came up with Palin.
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Insightful)
Name these people, please.
Flynn, for starters.
Look, I think Trump has a chance to drive some good change for our country. Please note that I thought the same of Obama, based on some of his campaign promises, but was sadly disappointed (I am not holding my breath for Trump). What remains to be seen is whether Trump will actually succeed in that, or whether he will go the route of Obama: expend all his political capital on a single issue, lose the advantage of both House and Senate majorities of the same political party as a result (given the disenchantment of lots of conservatives with lack of progress, this could happen), discard 99% of his campaign promises (Trump already seems headed down this particular path), and then spend the remainder of his time in office trying to shore up the one single accomplishment and then praying his successor doesn't undo it.
That said, pretending that the Trump administration doesn't have serious problems at this point doesn't help anyone: Trump, the administration, or the American people.
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Funny)
Name these people, please.
Flynn, for starters.
Those sound like facts. You're going to have to do better than that here,
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump has no political capital worth mentioning. If anything he tries succeeds, it's because it's coincidentally what those around him want, not because he's making it happen by cleverness or force of personality. This is not business as usual, where Trump can just move on to the next deal if he fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was the only president to ever resign.
Apparently it is only a *bad* thing in the US to resign as politicians generally hang in by their claws until unseated rather than resign. Prime ministers resign all the time in the rest of the world (generally when their parties perform poorly in an election). Of course this behavior is infectious in the US and resignations have stopped happening even below the presidential level (e.g., Nancy Pelosi went from majority leader to minority leader which also has little precident).
Not that I'm defending Nixon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I think Trump has a chance to drive some good change for our country.
Nothing Trump has promised to do would be good for the country and quite a bit of his agenda will hurt a lot of people. While you are technically correct that he has a chance to drive good change he has given no indication that the change he wants is actually good. I think your optimism that Trump has any interest in being a positive agent for change is misplaced.
Please note that I thought the same of Obama, based on some of his campaign promises, but was sadly disappointed (I am not holding my breath for Trump).
Why? Trump is working very hard to make good on his (frankly horrifying) campaign promises. What you should hope for is that he fails in his
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing Trump has promised to do would be good for the country and quite a bit of his agenda will hurt a lot of people.
Everybody thinks in terms of trickle-down economics, and so believes moving the average price of pants from $15 to $150 would be good for America if Americans were making pants instead of importing them from China.
They don't understand that then Americans in total would have less capacity to buy things, because they don't grasp that a potential 178,000 jobs in making pants (in this example) is trivial compared to the 125,000,000 employed: they think adding 0.14% more jobs by making everyone else poorer "keeps the money in America", and equate money to wealth. Too bad the same money doesn't buy so much, meaning...
They don't understand that those lost purchases mean fewer potential jobs. You might get +106,000 instead of +178,000, with low enough American wages in the factories. That's a best-case scenario of paying the American factory workers as little as possible--minimum wage, minimum benefits. You lose purchasing ability in the form of, at minimum-wage salaries, 40% as many pants sold.
With that 40% loss in pants shipped and retailed, you lose jobs. A truck carries 20,000 pairs in a 40-foot shipping container (large trailer). 192.6 million pairs imported, now Americans make and buy 115.6 million, that's 77 million fewer pairs, 3,851 fewer truck shipments per year. 981 register scans per hour by a retail worker, 77 million fewer items sold, no longer need ~78,526 retail workers.
There's additional loss in logistics, stocking, and some other stuff. The reduction in items sold is enough to close a couple stores, technically, although you'd only eliminate at best 2,000-3,000 employees in total through that route. The cost of shipping also includes things like truck tires, fuel, and maintenance, and the demand for those goods goes down when we can't afford as many goods (the prices of which already include those costs): a couple mechanics, Goodyear factory workers, and the like lose their jobs. Nothing major, like the huge bomb dropped on retail.
Call it 80,000 jobs. You can create 106,000 minimum-wage factory jobs and eliminate 80,000 other jobs by manufacturing pants in America instead of China. That assumes that the only cost in running the factory is the factory workers; you create fewer jobs and lose more jobs when you also factor in the cost of organization (managers, etc.), equipment, buildings, fuel and electricity, and so forth, all of which exceed the respective costs in the Chinese manufacturing theater.
At the same time, those minimum-wage workers produce pants which cost ~66% more. For a minimum-wage retail worker, a $15 pair of pants costs 1.8 hours of labor; for the minimum-wage factory worker, the $25 pair of pants costs 3 hours of labor. They have to work 1.2 hours longer to draw the wages to produce them.
The cost by number of hours worked to earn the wages to buy the product gets larger if we raise the factory-worker's wage; the number of jobs created shrinks; and the number of jobs lost elsewhere increases. You quickly go from ~26,000 new jobs and 300,000,000 poorer Americans to a direct loss of jobs and even poorer Americans when any of the involved costs increase.
See how many steps you have to work through to get that far? All people see is, "Well, factory workers! Jobs! New jobs!" and "Oh, well, pay the factory workers more and they won't be so poor!" Never mind that paying them more will actually make it harder for them to afford the products they're making--it'll let them afford more Chinese import products, though.
Best part: the end result of a gain or loss in jobs--in employment rate, really--is an adjustment of the labor force to either consume the available additional jobs or reduce the number of job-seekers. In other words: short- and long-term changes keep us around a certain stable employment rate (it's ~5% in
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing Trump has promised to do would be good for the country and quite a bit of his agenda will hurt a lot of people.
Everybody thinks...
I never made it past these two words. Seems like a waste of effort writing whatever it is you wrote next...
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing Trump has promised to do would be good for the country and quite a bit of his agenda will hurt a lot of people.
Well, that of course is your opinion. Reigning in the federal government, both in terms of power and size, is something a lot of us want to see, along with fiscal responsibility. Trump at least promised those kinds of things, and we all know Clinton couldn't care less about changing the status quo in those areas. The "America first" concept also has merit in this day and age, as it sure seems our government is throwing billions of dollars every which way globally, to prop up and otherwise fund any number of governments and organizations. I'm not saying that isn't necessary or in our best interests, but it surely seems excessive at first glance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that of course is your opinion.
That is the opinion of the majority of the US citizens. Or did you forget that he won the election but lost the vote?
Reigning in the federal government, both in terms of power and size, is something a lot of us want to see, along with fiscal responsibility.
Fine goals as an ideal but HOW you go about it matters greatly. Trump certainly is not going to be the guy to get you there. Fiscal responsibility? Don't make me laugh. The republicans haven't given a shit about fiscal responsibility since Reagan took office. That's why we have this absurdly large debt. They want to have their cake (medicare and a large military) and eat it too (no tax
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Insightful)
Reigning in the federal government, the grand slogan with no meaning. The bulk of all federal employment is military. The bulk of all spending in government goes in 3 containers, Military, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Eliminating everything else the government does including a whole lot of stuff you want them to do would save about 2% of the budget.
The only way to reduce the federal government is to slash military spending.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel we have a leadership issue.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are at odds idealistically, and I tend to favor somewhat of a conservative approach to progressive socioeconomic policy. Even so, the problem isn't exactly ideals, so much as it's wild radicalism: the Republicans and Democrats both leverage fear, uncertainty, and polarized idealism to grab at American mind share. Each party ups the ante at every opportunity, whether that be by loud shrieks and tantrums or by smug self-impo
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Britain we have our general election tomorrow (Thursday 8th) and it is absolutely fascinating in its own kind of way, and it ties in very strongly with the AC's comment above in my mind.
10 years ago Britain was in much the same position as the USA - a mostly leftist party (Labour) and a mostly rightist party (Conservatives) took turns to have a go at being in power for a few years, pissed everything up after a while and then the other party had a go. It had been that way since WW2.
But in the 2010 el
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I think Trump has a chance to drive some good change for our country.
What did he actually "drive"?
There was an uptick in confidence among 50% of the population after the election. That helped something, sure, but:
a) Will it last
b) It wasn't due to anything Trump did.
Re: (Score:2)
>Trump's potential are terrifying to the political elite.
LOL. Oh, you actuallly believe trump hasnt been bought by the swamp ? let me laugh even louder : HAHAHAHAHAH !!!
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you should read the following and re-assess the character of your president : http://boingboing.net/2017/06/... [boingboing.net]
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you should read the following and re-assess the character of your president
If by president you mean prime minister, and if by prime minster you mean Justin Trudeau. I guess I will. Or, I could simply make my point that US and world media is so unhinged along with the average anti-trumper that they need tranquilizers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Name these people, please.
Flynn, for starters.
Actually, Flynn resigned when he was asked to do so. Comey and some DA's where fired, but Flynn wasn't. Yea, I know it's a fine point, but hey, let's be accurate.
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Informative)
"This man has served for many years, he's a general, he's a â" in my opinion â" a very good person. I believe that it would be very unfair to hear from somebody who we don't even know and immediately run out and fire a general."
- guess who
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, this was stated *after* he fired him,not before.
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Informative)
He seems awfully apologetic for a guy supposedly fired for lyring to the Vicepresident.
Also, seriously? Trump, who has no reservations in publicly shitting anyone he doesn't like, consequences be damned, treats his former NSA with kids gloves only because the globalist elite told him so? And lets not forget, Flynn was disliked by pretty much everyone in DC. At one point even Obama told Trump no to hire the guy, for pete's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. It seems to confound the parent poster which believes Flynn was somehow imposed to Trump.
My point is Trump likes Flynn and wouldn't have fired him if it weren't for public pressure after his Russian ties were published.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, i'm not arguing against this. Just trying to explain that believing Flynn was imposed on Trump is, at best, naive. He likes him.
"Yeah, because it is totally inconceivable that a person is good, and yet lied about something innocuous (or even forgettable) like having a conversation.". You should raise that point to the current administration. They didn't give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Being Ethical means it doesn't matte which party is doing it. Both (R) and (D) excuse unethical behavior of their people all the time. Being Ethical doesn't include being selectively ethical.
Bill Clinton meeting Lynch on the tarmac was a gross violation of all sorts of ethics. But way too many on the left doesn't care.
And for the record, confiscatory taxes aren't ethical, which every progressive seems to enjoy promoting.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Insightful)
Name these people, please.
About 3 seconds of googling found this: http://www.politico.com/magazi... [politico.com]
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, the good old "But but but but Hillary" whine. It's not every day you have to tell somebody "you won, get over it"
The common denominators amongst Trump supporters appears to be blindness to any wrongdoing by their God Emperor, an inability to take responsibility for anything at all, ever, and being stuck in an eternal election cycle that has already been and gone.
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Interesting)
The contacts are real and documented. What's being investigated right now if there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump administration.
Re: (Score:2)
All the campaigns had contact with the Russians. Even Stein, though why the Ruskys bothered is beyond me.
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the alternative. Global politics isn't pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting democracy in Saudi? If you are, you're as dumb as rock.
Managing the middle east is all about maintaining the Sunni/Shia stalemate. Which we did a great job of during the Iran/Iraq war and which we are back to now.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an actual argument?
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Informative)
Jeff session was part of the trump campaign and used trump campaign finances to meet with the russian ambassador, then lied about it under oath, and on government documents.
Manford had russian connections and ran the trump campaign.
Kushner met with the same russian ambassador several times while working on the campaign and doesn't have access to Jeff sessions excuse that he was doing it as a representative of the senate and used the wrong bank account (and no other senator on the same committees he is on has ever had to meet with the russian ambassador or knows why sessions would be meeting with the russian ambassador...).
Trump himself asked russia to locate emails from hillary clinton's servers on public broadcast television.
The ties have been proven. The legality of the ties are in question.
Please consider using reality as a measuring stick of what is true and what is false in the future this fantasy world you are living in with Mr Trump isn't going to change what the investigations that are happening in reality find.
Re: (Score:2)
Manford
*Manafort
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it wasn't "his job". No one on the foreign relations committee meets with ambassadors. No one in the history of the foreign relations committee has met with the Russians in their role as committee members. (That could very well be considered treason!)
You bought a great big line of bullshit.
Members of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations are not ambassadors. They deal with legislation related to foreign policy, confirmation of high-ranking state department officials, and funding fore
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it wasn't "his job". No one on the foreign relations committee meets with ambassadors
You're repeating bullshit, sounds like you're a paid troll, maybe for Claire McCaskill. [twitter.com] Yet another member of of the "foreign relations committee" who's met with multiple ambassadors including the russian amabassador [twitter.com], and french, and british, and german. [twitter.com] Oh would you look at that? I guess we'd better start an indepth investigation to see if McCaskill is actually a russian agent. It would be such a shame for the democrats if that was to happen wouldn't it....
Then again this appears to be a much [dailycaller.com]bigger sc
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes it even more confusing why he didn't disclose it when he was legally required to do so. It's like a software engineer saying "nope, never used a computer." Not sure if he's lying, confused, or an idiot.
John Oliver's description of this as "Stupid Watergate" is very apt.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
After the servers were down and Hillary had stonewalled on providing the data to the FBI.
I don't care who has the emails. They should post them for the world to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I had Russian dressing on my salad..... Ho Boy, a *CONNECTION*!
What doesn't exist is any evidence of collusion (or better conspiracy) between the Russians and any Trump associate to "hack the election" which has been the whole justification of the "investigations" going on.
Come on.. PLEASE engage in some critical thinking. What is being alleged here that is a crime? Once you figure that out, then look at the evidence and tell me what we have that supports somebody associated with Trump did it...
So
Re: (Score:2)
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Right back at you, conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Did you boss pat you on the back for engaging in political debate? A good boss would have. A better boss would have hashed out some of the issues with you. A boss who gives you a hard time for doing so should be your "old boss".
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between honest debate and debating a rock.
Arguing with most liberals and all antifa/reds is debating a rock.
Re:"mounting scrutiny of ties" (Score:5, Insightful)
So: presumably you a now going to urge your congressman/woman to support an investigation of Trump?
I well recall during the campaign (when Clinton's alleged behaviour and alleged ties were still relevant) the multitudes of cries to "lock her up!" Presumably then, those outraged republicans (and yourself) now demand the same for Trump?
To do otherwise would be hypocrisy - wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Democrat queuing theory...No. First we investigate/imprison Hillary. We'll get to Trump after he is out of office and there's a chance of doing a real investigation.
Any Trump investigation under his administration would be just as much a bad joke as investigations of Hillary under Obama were.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the one where she didn't get any money, was just one of ~10 people who approved it, and disclosed all of her discussions with the russians? Also, she hasn't praised the russians and their dictatorial leader.
I think you're proving that they are not at all the same thing.
Another conversative buttfucker (Score:2, Funny)
Make America break again
Re: Trump 2020 (Score:5, Funny)
What do Trump and his father have in common?
Both have bad judgement when it comes to pulling out.
Re: (Score:2)
Make America Grate Again
Zombie Garcia for FBI Director 2017!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think you're underestimating the Strong Misanthropic Principle that got him elected in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be so sure. I was under the impression that nominating him last year was a guaranteed way to lose.
I completely underestimated how terrible of a candidate the DNC would choose.
LK
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I completely underestimated how terrible of a candidate the DNC would choose.
Yep. When it became clear that the populace supported Sanders, then it seemed like Trump would lose. But when the DNC made it clear that they weren't going to let us have Sanders, then it seemed like Trump could win. And then he did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the media gave him so much free press- they knew that a Trump presidency would be endless source of click-bait fodder.
Were they thinking that far ahead? They usually just print whatever people will read. Or, these days, play whatever people will watch. Everyone knows Trump supporters can't read. (Trump voters, on the other hand, were wealthier than Clinton voters, so presumably their reading skills are up to snuff as they can afford education.)
Re:Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
I actually looked the guy up and he does have some of the typical background for the job, having worked in the US attorneys' office and DOJ for about eight years.
That's a little thin compared to Comey's 18 years of public service before nomination, or Mueller's 15 years. Louis Freeh was an actual FBI agent for six years, followed by ten years as a prosecutor and two as a federal judge.
So given that his relevant experience is a bit thin by recent standards, why Wray? Probably because he's willing to do the job under circumstances. As to whether his personal loyalty to the President will be greater than Comey's, that only people who know him could say.
If the President is relying solely on the fact that Wray represented Chris Christie in a case where Christie was widely viewed as having abused his executive power, well then the President would be a fool. Smart lawyers understand where their duty lies. When their defending a client it's to the client. But while an FBI director works under the president, he's not the president's personal lawyer; his duty is to the country.
We'll have to watch the confirmation hearings to get a sense of who this guy is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And five will get you ten that, during the confirmation hearing, at least one Senator asks "Did Trump ask you for a pledge of loyalty to him?"
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't touch the short end of that bet.
Fake News! (Score:5, Informative)
James Comey is also a Lawyer, who practiced Law and worked for the DOJ prior to heading the FBI. Prior to Comey, we had Robert Mueller who was also a Lawyer and also worked for the DOJ. Pickard who served a whole 71 days was not an attorney, but prior to him Louis Freeh was.. can you guess? An Attorney.
In fact, why not run through the list [wikipedia.org] and see how many FBI directors were of all things, a "Lawyer". The only reason for this thread to make it to the front page is for clickbait and post count. It is not a "story", and not "news"
Re: (Score:2)
The story is fine. Some commentators have a hatred of lawyers, but that's not a problem with the story.
The profession of "lawyer", much like the profession of "politician", is greatly maligned. There's some truthful basis for this; there are a number of truly terrible lawyers and politicians. But like any group of people, there are also a number of decent hardworking lawyers and politicians who are trying to make the world a better place. Painting the whole profession with the same brush would be the sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm lazy (Score:2)
He's known primarily for managing to keep Chris Christie out of prison after the BridgeGate scandal in New Jersey. Sounds like just the sort of expertise Trump is going to need.
Re: (Score:2)
Puhlease... while GWB might be in the bottom ten or so, I can't possibly see him as being *the* worst. I'm not from the USA, and not entirely up on knowing all of the US presidents, but I'm pretty sure there were at least half a dozen worse than him in the 19th century alone. Offhand, I can name two that were each certainly objectively worse: Pierce and Buchanan.
Re: (Score:2)
LBJ and Grant are hard to beat as terrible, incredibly corrupt presidents with incredibly corrupt staffs.
Re: (Score:2)
All I think is he served the worst president of all time(GW) and possibly played a hand in bringing us the patriot act among other privacy removing laws brought in through secret courts and other BS.
I had hopes for Trump, but he just seems to be serving the billionaires club.
You sir, don't know much history...
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. Those who do know history are bound to sit and helplessly watch while those who don't repeat it.