- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,950
- Reaction score
- 19,685
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I look at the complete opposite way. IMO Come's refusal to sign a loyalty pledge is borderline treasonous.
If you were a CEO of a company and an employee refused to sign or give affirmation that he/she will act in the companies best interest, the CEO should have a right to terminate that employee.
Who does Comey think he is? Do we real need an FBI director that will defy the President of the United States?
Poor analogy. Being POTUS is an elected position to serve the people. Our Constitution provides for three equal branches of government, with a series of checks and balances to keep one branch from getting out of control.
The CEO of a business is a different function. Autocrats can often do well as a CEO, but not as President.
The FBI, though within the executive branch, is federal law enforcement. The Director of the FBI has already pledged to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The POTUS is not above the law. When the POTUS breaks the law or laws may have been broken and the trail of evidence leads an investigation to 1600 Pennsylvania, its the FBI's duty to follow that investigation. The POTUS does not get to direct FBI. The idea that the Director of the FBI is beholden to the POTUS is absurd (and dangerous).