Your overriding idea here, which I totally support, is the CEO's ability to trust his/her staff.

If I were incoming, as the chief executive, I WOULD make it a priority to surround myself with MY people. People who share MY view, MY agenda, people who are flowing along in the same current as I am. No contrarians who are there to throw monkey-wrenches into things. No saboteurs. NOT EVEN those who sit back, in arrogance (as I've personally WITNESSED as a professional in the working world) and CLAIM they're just being a "Devil's advocate". All they're doing is shaking their dicks around hoping to show off how big they think they are. Pardon the crudeness, but in my own personal experience, such individuals have ALWAYS been male. Folks like these view themselves, with some smugness, as "disruptors."

Keep in mind, too, those "disruptor" types only want to disrupt. They NEVER have the next step. They NEVER have any solutions. They NEVER go to "I want to disrupt - because we need to fix this or we need to change that". They just wanna disrupt. Tear it all up. And once they got their way, they'd be outta here. They just want to wreak havoc, and then maybe watch the hysteria and mess and wreckage afterwards like spectators in the Roman Colosseum games. With no involvement, no personal stake, no interest in helping or contributing. Nothing. They just like to stir shit up for the sheer fun of stirring shit up.

I would not want to have one of those in my department. Especially since I HAVE had one of those in my department, and it was FUCKING MISERABLE! And there really were no positive results from it, except for me. I got the hell outta there and into a new job AWAY from there, out of range of any further bomb-throwing from some self-flattering "back-bencher" (look back to the rise of Newt Gingrich, for example, and how he swaggered around as a newly arrived "cub" Congressman, determined to make a name for himself - AS a disruptor - "I'M a BACK-BENCH BOMB-THROWER!" he'd boast. Yep, those were his very words).

The "bomb-thrower" in my case did indeed get my job after I left, as she'd schemed to accomplish, but then it became one of those inevitable "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it" type things. She had NO IDEA what was in store for her as acting news director. She had NO IDEA the shit she was going to have to deal with. Departmental problems, INTER-departmental problems, staffing complications, ego-juggling, boring management staff meetings that only consisted of different department heads trying to massage their reason for being to the general manager seated at the head of the conference table, the memos, the budgetary constraints, the employment hassles and headaches, that one staffer handling morning news who routinely called in sick late Sunday night and you had to scramble to cover the Monday morning shift at the last minute, the staffers who didn't get along and had to be dealt with strategically and psychologically, loads of personality conflicts and seniority issues, all that shit. This little girl, fairly new in town, with basically ONE earlier job at ONE other station on her resume, had never been in management before. Had NO clue. And of course, didn't think she needed one (after all, she was blonde with big blue eyes and long legs and always very short skirts). So she was totally unprepared. And that was only in one avenue (out of many). AND it didn't help the ratings, didn't help the morning show, didn't create some magic within the station, and didn't stop the catty comments in one of the newspaper columns that singled her out for mispronunciations and factual errors. ME they called a "respected journalist." They described her as a "sidekick news-reader." Meanwhile, as she was in way over her head, struggling to juggle all that, I landed yet another job where, bewilderingly enough, once you made permanent, you became like a tenured teacher and you COULD NOT be fired. In broadcasting, no less!

No. I think Comey has to go. If Hillary wins, there's no way she can trust him. I don't see how she could feel comfortable with someone like him on her staff. Someone who has VERY probably violated the Hatch Act and BROKEN THE LAW. Just in general, he would be viewed as a rogue agent. As the hapless CON Kevin McCarthy once said at the very dawn of this campaign season, making up a new word as he went - "untrustable." And if she didn't feel that way, I'd bet many on her staff would feel that way. It's a bad way to get started. The bad blood would have to be purged. Because he's TOTALLY compromised now. There are multiple reasons why NO ONE on either side would feel totally comfortable trusting him. If, Heaven forbid, Trump were to win, even he - OR his staff - would not trust Comey, either. Because the underlying concern would be - "how soon does he pull one of these on US? (After all, remember last July?)"

Welcome to DU, Lizzeee!

I'd say it's about 98% of the time. Okay, maybe 95% of the time.

Every so often I like to pull this link out and set it on the table: It's a graph comparing lots of candidates present and past (Trump, and Sarah Palin, for example) and one sitting President (Obama) in a truth versus pants-on-fire comparison. You won't be surprised to see where Trump ranks. Some might be surprised to see where they rank Hillary Clinton, but most of us already know that.

http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty

Cough it up, Comey.

Welcome to DU, TrekLuver!

Hmmm... Trek, 'eh?

Cough it up, Comey!

If you can issue public insinuations about Hillary's emails, then why can't you tell us what you believe is going on between Trump and Putin? Cough it up, dude. Let's not have such a FLAGRANT double standard here, since you do work for the JUSTICE Department (for the time being, anyway). Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

I love this gal!

Go over there and visit her Twitter page! Saw this one and immediately had to retweet it:

"If you don't know how Trump still has even 40% of the vote, just remember we as Americans need warning labels telling us not to eat soap." !!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm... that's always been my understanding, although I certainly could be wrong.

FBI director is appointed by the President, so I believe that means the appointee serves at the pleasure of the chief executive.

But in thinking about this I did get curious, honorable Chairman. My husband and I disagreed about whether Obama (or a President) could fire Comey. So I looked it up. Turns out I was correct. They get to it in Point 1.

Can FBI Director James Comey Be Fired? 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/james-comey-fired-fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-private-server-influence-election/

Point 2 is an interesting little factoid that I did not remember - the only FBI director to be fired by his President?
"But only one of those directors was ever fired by a president — William S. Sessions who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, but who was beset by allegations of ethics violations, such as disguising private vacations as law enforcement business, and using a chauffeured government limousine for personal transportation."

Point 3 is MOST intriguing and might lead to some more sleepless nights for James Comey...

“There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election,” George J. Terwilliger III, who was deputy attorney general in the George Bush administration told The New York Times on Saturday. “Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes, that makes for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.”

“There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo,” the former Bush administration official added.

Comey also directly defied the wishes of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her deputy, Sally Yates, who wanted the FBI director to stick to long-established tradition and keep his comments about matters that could have a bearing on the presidential election to himself, CNN reported.

The story goes on, according to CNN, that "Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill." An unnamed current Justice Department official is quoted in the story as saying Comey is “operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

LOVE this!

Sure spells out how I feel!

Thanks for posting this, Bill!

But rest assured - a President CAN fire an FBI director.

In Catholic school, it's called a "sin of omission."

If you didn't lie outright, but you didn't say anything to promote the truth, if you yourself didn't do the deed, but you stayed silent when you knew who did and you should have said something - that time of thing.

This is binary. Only one OR the other. Either you're with him or against him. This person is evidently a FORMER Congressman, but he still ought to say, one way or the other. Or else he's just a coward. At least he copped to that.