Trump's Team

Realistically, how qualified do you have to be? The FBI's building is named after the man that led the agency for almost 50 years. Under his leadership, the FBI investigated the song "Louie, Louie" for 20 months, Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, The Grateful Dead, Extra Sensory Perception, Albert Einstein, and UFOs.

Hoover lived with his mother, was a transvestite, and made many FBI agents dress in women's clothes.

If you can get the FBI headquarters building named for you after the above mentioned activities, it would be difficult to imagine what would disqualify anyone from running the FBI.
 
iatrogenic said:
Realistically, how qualified do you have to be? The FBI's building is named after the man that led the agency for almost 50 years. Under his leadership, the FBI investigated the song "Louie, Louie" for 20 months, Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, The Grateful Dead, Extra Sensory Perception, Albert Einstein, and UFOs.

Hoover lived with his mother, was a transvestite, and made many FBI agents dress in women's clothes.

If you can get the FBI headquarters building named for you after the above mentioned activities, it would be difficult to imagine what would disqualify anyone from running the FBI.
Click to expand...

The FBI certainly done its share of goofy things, and Hoover was certainly a weirdo (or ahead of his time if you're a believer in "trannyism"). However, to run the agency, I think it's good to have a history of going after bad guys in some criminal context - a federal prosecutor, a criminal court judge, etc.
 
I heard Sen. Mike Lee suggest Merrick Garland. Now that would make for a very interesting confirmation hearing.
 
UTChE96 said:
I heard Sen. Mike Lee suggest Merrick Garland. Now that would make for a very interesting confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think it would be a smart move. First, it would be pretty much impossible for Democrats to oppose him or even grill him very much. Second, it's a position in which Garland's judicial philosophy would be of little importance. Third, it's a position in which personal integrity and competence are very important, and Garland is known to have both. Finally, it would end any allegation that the FBI is beholden to Trump and reestablish its independence, and it would probably nullify the need for a special prosecutor.

Now why would Garland give up a cushy life appointment to the second most powerful court in the United States (and a shot at the Supreme Court in the future) to jump into the hornets nest of running the FBI? I can't imagine. I wouldn't even consider it if I was in his shoes.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The FBI certainly done its share of goofy things, and Hoover was certainly a weirdo (or ahead of his time if you're a believer in "trannyism"). However, to run the agency, I think it's good to have a history of going after bad guys in some criminal context - a federal prosecutor, a criminal court judge, etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed, a background in enforcement of our laws is imperative. In this political environment, any history in national politics should be a disqualification. For all the accusations on both sides that Comey was political, I think the fact that he pissed off both sides is representative of his apolitical approach to his job. That must continue.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Frankly, I think it would be a smart move. First, it would be pretty much impossible for Democrats to oppose him or even grill him very much. Second, it's a position in which Garland's judicial philosophy would be of little importance. Third, it's a position in which personal integrity and competence are very important, and Garland is known to have both. Finally, it would end any allegation that the FBI is beholden to Trump and reestablish its independence, and it would probably nullify the need for a special prosecutor.

Now why would Garland give up a cushy life appointment to the second most powerful court in the United States (and a shot at the Supreme Court in the future) to jump into the hornets nest of running the FBI? I can't imagine. I wouldn't even consider it if I was in his shoes.
Click to expand...

My lone concern with Garland is does he have the administrative experience to run an organization with the scope of the FBI. Looking at his Wikipedia site, his largest role as "Assistant US Attorney" for D.C. What kind of scope or responsibility (number of indirect reports?) and budget ownership would he have that prepares him for leading the FBI?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Looking at his Wikipedia site, his largest role as "Assistant US Attorney" for D.C. What kind of scope or responsibility (number of indirect reports?) and budget ownership would he have that prepares him for leading the FBI?
Click to expand...

Fair questions. FWIW, Louis Freeh's was an AUSA and a federal judge before becoming director. I generally think he did a good job.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Fair questions. FWIW, Louis Freeh's was an AUSA and a federal judge before becoming director. I generally think he did a good job.
Click to expand...

I could get on board with a Louis Freeh-ish director. I'm just leery about the potential for "promoting" someone whose strengths might be in areas other than a demonstrated administration capability.

Given Trump's animus to the Democrats, I'd be surprised if Garland were even interviewed though.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I could get on board with a Louis Freeh-ish director. I'm just leery about the potential for "promoting" someone whose strengths might be in areas other than a demonstrated administration capability.

Given Trump's animus to the Democrats, I'd be surprised if Garland were even interviewed though.
Click to expand...

The only way Garland would get appointed is if McConnell made a big push for him, which isn't out of the question, but I tend to think Trump will want someone who's less independent than Garland, which is a shame. Not only do I think he'd make a respectable director, I think it would be a brilliant political move.

As for Garland accepting it, I still don't see why he'd go along. If I was Garland, I'd want a couple of things done before accepting it. First, I'd want a raise. He's giving up a life tenured and comparatively low-stress job for a termed position that's very high-stress. I'd tell Trump to get Congress to up the pay, which they can do. Second, I'd want the position changed to to make it similar to those who run independent regulatory agencies, meaning I'd want the President's ability to fire me restricted to "good cause" or malfeasance. Would you give up a life-tenured position to take on a position for which Trump could ****-can you at any time for no reason? I wouldn't, especially when it pays about $45K per year less.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The only way Garland would get appointed is if McConnell made a big push for him, which isn't out of the question, but I tend to think Trump will want someone who's less independent than Garland, which is a shame. Not only do I think he'd make a respectable director, I think it would be a brilliant political move.

As for Garland accepting it, I still don't see why he'd go along. If I was Garland, I'd want a couple of things done before accepting it. First, I'd want a raise. He's giving up a life tenured and comparatively low-stress job for a termed position that's very high-stress. I'd tell Trump to get Congress to up the pay, which they can do. Second, I'd want the position changed to to make it similar to those who run independent regulatory agencies, meaning I'd want the President's ability to fire me restricted to "good cause" or malfeasance. Would you give up a life-tenured position to take on a position for which Trump could ****-can you at any time for no reason? I wouldn't, especially when it pays about $45K per year less.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize the FBI Director was paid so much less than an Appeals Court Judge. That's not right.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I didn't realize the FBI Director was paid so much less than an Appeals Court Judge. That's not right.
Click to expand...

Our federal pay system is out of whack. Federal employees are generally not underpaid and are often overpaid. However, the actual people in charge of agencies are underpaid. Hell, the attorney general only makes about $205K. They don't have the job security that other federal employees have and face real scrutiny every day, which means their jobs are very high stress. The idea that somebody has to take a massive pay cut to go from the private sector to a cabinet-level position is ridiculous and invites corruption.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Our federal pay system is out of whack. Federal employees are generally not underpaid and are often overpaid. However, the actual people in charge of agencies are underpaid. Hell, the attorney general only makes about $205K. They don't have the job security that other federal employees have and face real scrutiny every day, which means their jobs are very high stress. The idea that somebody has to take a massive pay cut to go from the private sector to a cabinet-level position is ridiculous and invites corruption.
Click to expand...

I get the "pay cut" for public service since government will never be able to keep up with the private sector. In this case, it does seem that the head of federal agencies, with all their scope and stress are underpaid compared to judges. Of course, these judges came from firms where they made much more money and the agency heads make much more money after leaving their posts. Maybe it all nets out?
 
Seattle Husker said:
I get the "pay cut" for public service since government will never be able to keep up with the private sector. In this case, it does seem that the head of federal agencies, with all their scope and stress are underpaid compared to judges. Of course, these judges came from firms where they made much more money and the agency heads make much more money after leaving their posts. Maybe it all nets out?
Click to expand...

This is true, and I don't expect them to match the private sector. However, I think the heads of agencies and judges should both be paid more.
 
Rep. Trey Gowdy will replace Chaffetz as Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Expect more politicization of that committee. I'm sure more HRC investigations are in our future.
 
Yep that is what happens when your boss expects absolute loyalty but will throw you under the bus at the first sign of trouble.
 
Being Trump's Press Secretary would qualify for Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs show. I'm sure at least a part of Spicer is relieved.

I'll miss the SNL skits on "Spicey". They were some of their better stuff in recent decades.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the new WH comms director, Scaramucci, in the WH press briefing.

All I can say is where has this guy been? This is exactly the type of persona DT needs to convey his message and combat the corrupt MSM.

Scaramucci is in total control, strong presence, sharp as hell, extremely well spoken, total confidence in his answers, and interacts with the press smoothly.

I was no fan of Josh Earnest's platform, but the guy was very effective at his job. Scaramucci reminds me of Earnest in his abilities to handle the press in smooth control.

Their hostility towards him is nothing like it is/was with Spicer or SHS. Lot of respect being detected in that room. Too bad he's not press sec, but at least he's in charge.

I recommend checking out his press briefing today. Dude is impressive. DT finally fired the JV apologist team and hired a pro to run the show.

FYI, Spice Girl resigned because he wanted the WH comms job after losing press secretary to SHS. Trump picked a boss instead and Spicey quit after being passed over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top