I’m chuckling because I’m recalling the way in which Vice Admiral Bob Harward described his thoughts on being on the short list for (or perhaps even offered) the job of national security advisor: he called the job a “shit sandwich.”
Regarding timing: Comey sought more money for Russia probe days before he was fired.
Less and less mysterious.
Not that I’m on anyone’s short list for anything, but in the fantasy world in which Trump pulled my name out of the phone book to offer me a job, I’d accept a judicial appointment but refuse (politely) anything else, under the theory that once confirmed as a judge I’d be relatively immune from being pressured to do something unethical and my tenure would outlast the President’s.
So, yeah, that reasoning makes sense.
Don Diego was Zorro. Yes, Zimbalist played his dad, Don Alejandro. For one season (show went four). Think he didn’t like working in Madrid. Looks like a bit of guest work after that - looking at his filmography, I watched several of those shows.
As a man with an inherited lifestyle, who was CEO all his life, the one thing that all the firings have in common is that the person was insubordinate:
- Flynn lied to Pence
- Yates refused to support her boss
- Comey said he was “sick to his stomach” over affecting the election
CEO’s get into power by building alliances and syncophants - it is all about loyalty when you are climbing the corporate ladder, not “continuance of democratic institutions” or “non-political functionaries”. Trump the CEO has seen the above three people acting in unloyal, insubordinate ways, and he’s done the one thing a CEO knows how to do - fire people.
So, yeah, it’s possibly Russia, but really, I think it’s an extension of his training as corporate boss - you fire people who don’t do you right. And in the corporate world, a CEO who gets rid of his head of security when that guy is heard saying “I’m sorry for my role in making this guy my boss*” is only doing his job.
No wonder Trump is frustrated. 
*Not what Comey said, but what Trump heard.
I really disagree, they all have a connection to the Russian investigation. If Trump had been outraged by Flynn’s behavior, he wouldn’t have waited 18 days to fire him, he also wouldn’t have had his counsel call Yates back the day after the briefing to ask why the Justice Department was interested in Flynn. Flynn was fired in an attempt to contain the scandal.
I think the point is, there are lots of good candidates whom Clinton or Obama could have - and likely have - picked, who are at least as good as Comey. But we can’t imagine Trump’s pick being any better than Comey.
Yes, it really is this simple, yall.
He probably didn’t like Comey professing nausea at the thought he influenced the election, but out of all the things that has come out of people’s mouths in recent days, that is nothing! Especially since Comey also said he’d do the same thing all over again.
Absolutely nothing about Trump (except his superb judicial picks) makes me confident he’ll pick a good candidate.
But I’d like to see who it is before I declare he sucks.
I’m still putting down money that McCabe will end up getting it (despite there only being a 51% vote requirement), simply because they won’t be able to agree on anyone else.
“McMaster appointment”, I shall call it.
I was more thinking that the factor limiting the 2017 candidate pool would be the unlikeliness that Trump would choose anyone who he couldn’t bend to his will.
I think good candidates’ refusal to work for Trump, anticipating that he would fire them as well if they didn’t act as his subordinates, would limit the pool in a similar manner, but not to the same extent. Because I think you’d get some candidates who were aware of the risks, but would be willing to see how long they could keep both the job and their integrity.
I’ve noticed in general in my own company that people’s tenure is inversely correlated to level in the company. You can have a very long term career as a mid-level employee, but the higher you get the more likely you’ll be blamed for some inevitable downturn in your division or the company as a whole and get sacked when they decide to “go in another direction”. (You see the same thing with sports teams as well.) But yet, people keep going for those promotions anyway.
I agree it would be a factor with someone who already has a lot going for them and has a somewhat comparable position as it is. But if you can get someone who is very capable but is in a much lower profile job than FBI director who would jump at that opportunity. Once you’ve been FBI director, your resume is set for life in related fields, and if you stand up to Trump and get sacked then it only gets better. For many people, it’s far better to have been FBI director and been sacked than to have toiled in relative obscurity with better job security.
To have an opponent, one has to have taken a position. I defy anyone to determine my position on what the President has done on the basis of anything I’ve said in this thread. This was my point. You said I was saying “[my] opponents carefully gloss over”, which imputes to me a motive I don’t have, since I don’t oppose anything anyone is saying here, or any position they are taking.
By the way, do you realize that your statements to me on this issue indicate you are the one suffering from a bias here?
This truly confuses me. Your post about the Senate was made at 11:57 am (my time); my last post here was made some 19 min. earlier. How can I have ignored what I hadn’t even seen, or had a chance to comment on?
May I suggest dialing back the hostility? :dubious:
Missing the point that I’m not taking any “side” in this “debate.” Indeed, sadly, the fact that my OP wasn’t taking a side appears to be part of the reason this got shuffled off to IMHO from Elections. 
Here is a list of four names being considered for interim Director. Obviously, there’s no guarantee any of them will be asked to become the actual Director.
Remind me please - what is the process for installing a new FBI director? He needs confirmation, right? And it’s just a straight majority vote?
Yes and yes. An interim director though does not need confirmation. Candidates for that are being interviewed right now.
I just have to add that I’ve seen the suggestion that Donald did the firing because Comey mis-stated facts about the emails in his testimony. This suggests that Trump on some level values truth and accuracy in communication.
Really breaks me up.
President nominates, Senate consents by majority vote.
The Senate can, however, require a cloture vote to end debate. The filibuster for this type of appointment remains.
He serves a ten year term.
Interestingly, since the ten-year term limit was created in 1976, only one director has served a full term. Others have resigned, and one prior to Comey was fired.
The ten year limit was created by Congress in response to J. Edgar Hoover’s unprecedented service as director from 1924 to 1972 and a general belief that one person serving that long in such a powerful position was not a net positive for the nation.
I don’t think so.