I think we all agree Wray has to go.

[fightforfreedom]

Does anyone know how much longer his term is? I imagine Biden would want a very good reason to remove Wray. Something that wouldn't look political. Biden will not pull a Trump when firing an FBI director. We may be stuck with this asshole.

[Walleye]

1. Well, it's a 10 year term, and he was appointed in 2017

Wasn’t McGonigal (sp) pulling his Russian bullshit under Wray’s watch

[Rebl2]

2. He has been

director since 2017 and they serve 10 year terms. I don’t think there terms should be that long myself.

[Ocelot II]

3. At best he's spineless. At worst, he's complicit.

I don't know which he is, but he does need to be replaced. An FBI director's term is 10 years and Wray has held the job since August of 2017, so he's got another 4-1/2 years - but he can be sacked by the president at his discretion, with or without cause. However, there are always political considerations and the fact that a new director would have to be confirmed by the Senate. So while it could be possible to remove and replace him it won't be easy.

[Paladin]

4. Just as soon as possible. (nt)

[NewHendoLib]

5. And DeJoy. And so many more.

All of the little cancer cells that are metastasizing lies and hate.

[CrispyQ]

6. Something that wouldn't look political.

Yeah, let's be sure not to do that! Let's be sure to follow tradition cuz you know, they'll respect that & pull back that boot they're about to place on our collective neck. If the fascists win, it will be because our side was afraid of appearing partisan & didn't want to rock the boat.

[gab13by13]

7. There are reasons to replace him.

He didn't bother to properly vet Brett Kavanaugh.
He lied to Congress about pre-J6 intelligence.

Bill Clinton fired FBI Director Sessions from a recommendation from AG Janet Reno because Sessions used government money for personal travel.

[The Magistrate]

8. 'Not Looking Political', Sir, Is Political Itself

You yourself make clear there is an action you want taken, which will certainly advance the 'political' aims of citizens determined to maintain the Constitution against insurrection. You hope for some pretext, a cover, so you can deny this.

Better by far to do it, out in the open, and say so. State officially the man is being fired for presiding over an agency rank with employees unwilling to stick their oaths if it advances their own political views, the views of those who find their policies cannot prevail in a functioning democracy, and so seek tyrannical authority to impose them.

Defeating an insurrection both is and is not political. On the one hand it is not 'political' because insurrection has no legitimate footing in a democratic order. On the other, because the sentiments of many must be taken into account, there must certainly be 'political' calculation involved in a campaign to put insurrection down. People strike the posture of being 'above politics' because their assessment of the moment's politics suggests this is the best political course to take.

I don't think it is. This is the nut of most criticism of Garland, that his political judgement fails the needs of our time.


"In future I may lose a battle, never again will I lose a minute."

[gab13by13]

10. I agree with your post 100%

Only 1 political party was/is complicit in the insurrection to overthrow our democracy. So when Garland says he will not be political he is being political.

He hired Jack Smith so as to give the appearance of being non-political and the right immediately attacked both Garland and Smith as being on a political witch hunt.

I believe that Jack Smith was the perfect choice to take over the investigations, hopefully he can catch up.

[Bev54]

9. I think there is more than enough to justify his dismissal.

I think the last 2 years was enough time to prove whether he was up to the job in this environment of cleaning up the mess of tfg and he is not up to the challenge. Get someone who is.