Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump should appoint a Democrat to run the FBI
. . .
Of course, there are many nominees from both parties who could inspire confidence: President Gerald Ford, for example, restored confidence in the Justice Department in the aftermath of Watergate by naming as attorney general someone who, although a fellow Republican, was seen as far above politics, University of Chicago President Edward H. Levi. But if there was ever a time it would be useful to continue the tradition of naming an FBI director from outside the presidents party, it is now. A president who has admitted demanding to know from the FBI director whether he was under investigation has created an urgent need for someone to assure the country that he or she could not be a partisan for the president.
On this score, the list of names supposedly under consideration could give pause. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), for instance, may well be an honorable and able legislator, but why pick someone for FBI director who has been an active political supporter of the president, whose campaign is under FBI investigation? Why not a senior judge who is not of the presidents party, or a former solicitor general such as Seth Waxman or a former national security official such as Lisa Monaco? Why not former prosecutor and Republican-appointed Judge David Levi, dean of Duke Law School, a Republican most of his life and now a registered independent (who also happens to be the son of Edward Levi)?
Its true that everything we know about Trump suggests that he is unlikely to appoint someone who doesnt show loyalty to him. But if Americans dont believe Trump can be trusted to make major decisions about an FBI director or other matters in a thoughtful and disinterested way, were lucky to live in a nation of checks and balances.
A half-dozen principled Republican senators can, to a significant degree, influence the direction of the executive branch. Some among them could choose to join with the Senate minority and preclude passage of legislation or confirmations. (They should have, for example, declined to confirm any attorney general nominee without first insisting upon the appointment of a special counsel for the Russia investigation.) And they can, even now, create a list of outstanding men and women from whom the president would be urged to nominate an FBI director. By being passive, these senators own what Trump is doing.
In ordinary times, deference to a presidents choice of executive branch officials is appropriate, and practices such as senatorial courtesy are understandable. But these are surely not ordinary times: Is there any thoughtful person Democrat or Republican who does not fear that our democratic republic may be veering toward a crisis?
The Senate, with its six-year terms, is expected to be a moderating influence that would keep the national government from spinning out of control. Attention Sens. Susan Collins, John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsey Graham, Richard Burr, Rob Portman, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Lamar Alexander, perhaps others: This is your moment. This is your legacy. This is why we have a Senate.
Of course, there are many nominees from both parties who could inspire confidence: President Gerald Ford, for example, restored confidence in the Justice Department in the aftermath of Watergate by naming as attorney general someone who, although a fellow Republican, was seen as far above politics, University of Chicago President Edward H. Levi. But if there was ever a time it would be useful to continue the tradition of naming an FBI director from outside the presidents party, it is now. A president who has admitted demanding to know from the FBI director whether he was under investigation has created an urgent need for someone to assure the country that he or she could not be a partisan for the president.
On this score, the list of names supposedly under consideration could give pause. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), for instance, may well be an honorable and able legislator, but why pick someone for FBI director who has been an active political supporter of the president, whose campaign is under FBI investigation? Why not a senior judge who is not of the presidents party, or a former solicitor general such as Seth Waxman or a former national security official such as Lisa Monaco? Why not former prosecutor and Republican-appointed Judge David Levi, dean of Duke Law School, a Republican most of his life and now a registered independent (who also happens to be the son of Edward Levi)?
Its true that everything we know about Trump suggests that he is unlikely to appoint someone who doesnt show loyalty to him. But if Americans dont believe Trump can be trusted to make major decisions about an FBI director or other matters in a thoughtful and disinterested way, were lucky to live in a nation of checks and balances.
A half-dozen principled Republican senators can, to a significant degree, influence the direction of the executive branch. Some among them could choose to join with the Senate minority and preclude passage of legislation or confirmations. (They should have, for example, declined to confirm any attorney general nominee without first insisting upon the appointment of a special counsel for the Russia investigation.) And they can, even now, create a list of outstanding men and women from whom the president would be urged to nominate an FBI director. By being passive, these senators own what Trump is doing.
In ordinary times, deference to a presidents choice of executive branch officials is appropriate, and practices such as senatorial courtesy are understandable. But these are surely not ordinary times: Is there any thoughtful person Democrat or Republican who does not fear that our democratic republic may be veering toward a crisis?
The Senate, with its six-year terms, is expected to be a moderating influence that would keep the national government from spinning out of control. Attention Sens. Susan Collins, John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsey Graham, Richard Burr, Rob Portman, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Lamar Alexander, perhaps others: This is your moment. This is your legacy. This is why we have a Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/16/trump-should-appoint-a-democrat-to-run-the-fbi/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 3468 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump should appoint a Democrat to run the FBI (Original Post)
CousinIT
May 2017
OP
No no and no...he should appoint a non political, already in the FBI person
SticksnStones
May 2017
#1
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)1. No no and no...he should appoint a non political, already in the FBI person
Someone with actual experience suitable for the position.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)2. He should choose a law enforcement person...not a politician.
The FBI director should not be a 'crony' position.