Slashdot Mirror
Trump Nominates Lawyer To Lead FBI (bbc.com)
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.
"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.
...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.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
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.
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.
Name these people, please.
About 3 seconds of googling found this: http://www.politico.com/magazi...
Make America break again
He knows many words.
Name these people, please.
Flynn, for starters.
Those sound like facts. You're going to have to do better than that here,
"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
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What do Trump and his father have in common?
Both have bad judgement when it comes to pulling out.
He described Wray as "a man of impeccable credentials.
Translation: "He is loyal to Trump"
By the time of the election Flynn was (and still is) hated by the Washington establishment, I can't even begin to imagine why you'd suggest otherwise. As far as his involvement in Trump's campaign goes, he may or may not have been involved organizationally, but he was absolutely a top supporter of Trump and at one point was being seriously considered as Trump's VP pick. He made numerous appearances for Trump at Trump's campaign rallies.
The implication he was somehow forced on an unwilling Trump is absurd. Trump didn't even want to fire him, and has been defending him in public even after Flynn was gone.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
At least he has not appointed to his horse.
No but the article links to many reliable sources. That is the whole point of wikipedia.
The contacts are real and documented. What's being investigated right now if there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump administration.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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 attempts to make good on them. Furthermore pretending Obama and Trump are the chickens of a feather is patently ridiculous. The only thing they have in common is the job title. No president can make good on all their campaign promises. They aren't dictators even though Trump clearly has aspirations to become one.
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.
The Trump administration IS a serious problem in addition to having serious problems.
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?"
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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?
FYI, this was stated *after* he fired him,not before.
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.
I think you're underestimating the Strong Misanthropic Principle that got him elected in the first place.
"Make", possibly not. "Influence", definitely.
FBI agents must have a law degree. Why is it unusual that the FBI Director might be a lawyer. Is that supposed to be something negative?
Sessions was a Senator on the foreign relations committee. Meeting with Russians was his job.
At least he has not appointed to his horse.
He has appointed a number of horses asses though...
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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 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"
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Better known as 318230.
Also Manafort, Kushner, and Sessions. Maybe Carter Page and Roger Stone, too? I can't remember. Actually, far from being unable to name people, it's getting hard to keep track of all the people from the Trump campaign who have been caught lying about some kind of suspicious dealings with Russia.
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.
"You don't want a criminal _lawyer_... you want a _criminal_ lawyer."
- Jessie Pinkman
Scarce, scared, scarred, sacred... -Col. Bruce Hampton
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 foreign-aid.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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. Yet another member of of the "foreign relations committee" who's met with multiple ambassadors including the russian amabassador, and french, and british, and german. 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 bigger scandal. Especially since Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the capital police and tried to directly interfere with a criminal investigation. Oh boy, just what have the democrats really gotten themselves into...
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
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.
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 lists a number of career paths for agents, including a number of specializations. Of those, only the legal specialization requires a law degree. Given that the FBI employs everything from snipers to hackers to accountants to chemists, it should be patently obvious that a law degree is not currently a general requirement. Moreover, you can go all the way back to prohibition to see that they were hiring many of those same positions from the very start, none of which required a law degree back then either.
Sweet jesus you're using the X-Files as your source?
When you're making ludicrous claims, the best way to highlight their absurdity is to point out that even over-the-top fiction doesn't take it that far. Why? Can you think of a better way to highlight how absurd your claims are?
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...