• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who will replace Comey???

Who will replace Comey???

  • Total voters
    14
Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
6,362
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think Merrick Garland would be an excellent choice.
 
You made the poll multiple-choice. :D
 
It's probably going to be someone we've never heard of.

Probably a federal prosecutor more in tune to national security, cartels and the drug trade, especialy opioids.
 
An unequivocal Tump loyalist. Anything and everything else is tangential to absolute and uncompromising loyalty.
 
Of those on the list, Mike Rogers would be the best choice, followed closely by Ken Wainstein. The absolute best choice to my mind would be some one not on your list, Chuck Rosenberg. He is respected by people on both sides of the isle, has dedicated his life to law enforcement. From the wiki page on him:

has served in numerous positions throughout the Department of Justice, including as Trial Attorney for the Tax Division’s Criminal Enforcement Section from 1990 through 1994, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia from 1994 through 2000, Counsel to the Director of the FBI from 2002 through 2003, Counselor to the Attorney General from 2003 through 2004, and Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General from 2004 through 2005. Rosenberg has also spent time working in private practice as Counsel at Hunton and Williams, from 2000 through 2002, and as a partner at Hogan Lovells US LLP (2008–2013).[2]

Rosenberg was presidentially appointed and unanimously confirmed as the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, from 2006 through 2008, and appointed by the Attorney General to serve as the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of Texas, from 2005 through 2006.[2][3] Rosenberg served as Chief of Staff to the Director of the FBI from 2013 to 2015. In this role, he worked closely with Director James B. Comey and other senior FBI officials on counterterrorism, intelligence, cyber and criminal investigative issues, including with international, federal, state and local law enforcement partners.[2]
Click to expand...

That is a ****load of experience.
 
Redress said:
Of those on the list, Mike Rogers would be the best choice, followed closely by Ken Wainstein. The absolute best choice to my mind would be some one not on your list, Chuck Rosenberg. He is respected by people on both sides of the isle, has dedicated his life to law enforcement. From the wiki page on him:
.
Click to expand...
Sounds Right.
 
McCabe is already contradicting Trump and his Admins lies, so it sure as hell won't be him.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
McCabe is already contradicting Trump and his Admins lies, so it sure as hell won't be him.
Click to expand...

I finally found something you said that I agree with. In fact, McCabe seems to be purposely baiting Trump to nominate someone else, maybe for purely political reasons. McCabe might be playing a game of chess with Trump. I will say, however, that McCabe's wife clearly shows their partisanship.
 
Bucky said:
I think Merrick Garland would be an excellent choice.
Click to expand...

I don't really know much or anything about the people you listed but it would be nice if the choice wasn't partisan. Every other branch seems to be tainted with politics, it would be nice if the FBI wasn't. I watched McCabe and he seemed like a good choice. Trump nominating him would silence a lot of his critics, but I doubt Trump will do it. He seems to enjoy trolling his haters.
 
Fletch said:
I don't really know much or anything about the people you listed but it would be nice if the choice wasn't partisan. Every other branch seems to be tainted with politics, it would be nice if the FBI wasn't. I watched McCabe and he seemed like a good choice. Trump nominating him would silence a lot of his critics, but I doubt Trump will do it. He seems to enjoy trolling his haters.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that McCabe's wife is highly partisan. I would like to see a non-partisan choice though.
 
The funniest option on that list is Merrick Garland.
 
Redress said:
Of those on the list, Mike Rogers would be the best choice, followed closely by Ken Wainstein. The absolute best choice to my mind would be some one not on your list, Chuck Rosenberg. He is respected by people on both sides of the isle, has dedicated his life to law enforcement. From the wiki page on him:



That is a ****load of experience.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as being respected by sides of the aisle. There is only partisanship and bartering for votes on legislation. If the libs want a moderate, they will have to come to the table on some piece of legislation such as tax reform or something else. In other words, they'll have to give something in order to get a moderate appointment.

And, by the way, it's "aisle."

"Isle" is short for island - that's not the word you want.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
I finally found something you said that I agree with. In fact, McCabe seems to be purposely baiting Trump to nominate someone else, maybe for purely political reasons. McCabe might be playing a game of chess with Trump. I will say, however, that McCabe's wife clearly shows their partisanship.
Click to expand...

Zero chance it will be McCabe.

It will be Giuliani unless the Dems or Conservatives are willing to deal. For example, if the house cons are willing to vote for the health care bill when it comes back around, then perhaps Trey Gowdy will be the nominee in return. If the Dems are willing to bend on tax reform, perhaps we'll get a Merrick Garland.

Government these days is 100% transactional.
 
Snakebite said:
There is no such thing as being respected by sides of the aisle. There is only partisanship and bartering for votes on legislation. If the libs want a moderate, they will have to come to the table on some piece of legislation such as tax reform or something else. In other words, they'll have to give something in order to get a moderate appointment.

And, by the way, it's "aisle."

"Isle" is short for island - that's not the word you want.
Click to expand...

So you think that democrats should have to negotiate to get an FBI head who is not overly partisan? What a juvenile political sense you have.
 
Redress said:
Or more accurately, you LDS guys will claim it, hoping people actually believe you.
Click to expand...

Comey is FBI director - TDS suffering liberals complained that Pres. trump needed to fire him.
Comey gets fired - TDS suffering liberals complain that Pres. Trump fired him.

It doesn't matter what the President does, the TDS suffering liberals will find something to complain about. Then, when called out, they respond with counter-attacks using lies, false accusations of conservatives doing the same the same thing to President Obama and/or just plain old fashioned denial.
 
faithful_servant said:
Comey is FBI director - TDS suffering liberals complained that Pres. trump needed to fire him.
Comey gets fired - TDS suffering liberals complain that Pres. Trump fired him.

It doesn't matter what the President does, the TDS suffering liberals will find something to complain about. Then, when called out, they respond with counter-attacks using lies, false accusations of conservatives doing the same the same thing to President Obama and/or just plain old fashioned denial.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you LDS types have zero interest in honesty or integrity. Why do you insist on proving that with each post?
 
Redress said:
So you think that democrats should have to negotiate to get an FBI head who is not overly partisan? What a juvenile political sense you have.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "should have to" or any other hypothetical wishlists on my part. I'm making an observation and commenting on our modern political climate.

Modern politics is becoming transactional. It's a fact of life.

The opening at the FBI is a bargaining chip. Things of value don't normally come at no cost... especially to Donald Trump.
 
Snakebite said:
It has nothing to do with "should have to" or any other hypothetical wishlists on my part. I'm making an observation and commenting on our modern political climate.

Modern politics is becoming transactional. It's a fact of life.

The opening at the FBI is a bargaining chip. Things of value don't normally come at no cost... especially to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

That is just about as far from factually correct as it is possible to be. There is little to no negotiations, except when votes are needed. Negotiations are not, nor have they ever been, a significant part of FBI chief appointments.

And the idea some one would try and "sell" one of the top law enforcement offices speaks volumes about you.
 
Redress said:
That is just about as far from factually correct as it is possible to be. There is little to no negotiations, except when votes are needed. Negotiations are not, nor have they ever been, a significant part of FBI chief appointments.

And the idea some one would try and "sell" one of the top law enforcement offices speaks volumes about you.
Click to expand...

I didn't make a value judgement - I just stated an observation. You're right that in the past, things were done differently. Today, government is transactional. And negotiations are not done in public.

Now, if you do want my value judgement, I think a transactional approach is the only way government can work in this era of extreme partisanship. We're not going to come together around some common goodwill. Left and right hate each other.

Democrats are behaving as an obstructionist bloc on the hill, and so the White House needs a bag full of carrots and sticks to get them to go along with some things.

If you don't think the top post at the FBI should be politicized, then perhaps the position should not be a political appointment. Legally, the president appoints and the congress confirms. That puts the appointment within the wheelhouse of politics, and it means that the post will be bartered over. Am I saying that's the right way? Perhaps not, but it's what we've got under our current system.

I tend to agree with you, by the way, that the FBI should be independent of politics. But that's not the system we have.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom