Chris Wray - Confirmation hearing thread


yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
It's colored by what's currently happening in Washington.
True, but technically speaking the position of FBI director is politically independent, that's why the term is 10 years. It's up to congress to make sure that the nominee is an appropriate choice.
I don't think we can stay much longer with a lame duck interim director at the FBI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

AlliFlowers

Contributor
Jan 1, 2011
4,433
8,446
L.A. (Lower Alabama)
True, but technically speaking the position of FBI director is politically independent, that's why the term is 10 years. It's up to congress to make sure that the nominee is an appropriate choice.
I don't think we can stay much longer with a lame duck interim director at the FBI.
Congress is totally preoccupied with Trump and his family. They can't even pass a bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat and samcraig

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
I don't think we can stay much longer with a lame duck interim director at the FBI.
How can he be both lame duck and interim? And in any case, regardless of what names you call him, is there any evidence that he is ineffective or that the FBI isn't functioning as needed under his leadership? Because the answer to that rhetorical question is "no," there is no rush to replace him.

I'd rather congress focus on getting all their proverbial scheisse in one sock first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
How can he be both lame duck and interim? And in any case, regardless of what names you call him, is there any evidence that he is ineffective or that the FBI isn't functioning as needed under his leadership? Because the answer to that rhetorical question is "no," there is no rush to replace him.

I'd rather congress focus on getting all their proverbial scheisse in one sock first.
No interim director, or leader, has enough power to implement needed long term strategies in any organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
No interim director, or leader, has enough power to implement needed long term strategies in any organization.
What power is he lacking? Is there any rule that says the current director has anything less than all the powers of a director?

What long term strategical changes are needed so urgently that this must happen now above all other congressional business? Indeed, aren't long term strategical implementations non-urgent by their very nature and definition of the word "long"?
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
What power is he lacking? Is there any rule that says the current director has anything less than all the powers of a director?
If you ever worked in a large organization (or a bureaucracy) you would know very well that unless the director is expected to be there long enough to carry out an organizational vision he can't be as effective. It's just basic human nature, which in government is also amplified by the political factors.
I am sure that day to day operations are fine.

What long term strategical changes are needed so urgently that this must happen now above all other congressional business? Indeed, aren't long term strategical implementations non-urgent by their very nature and definition of the word "long"?
Not according to the previous director. He gave federal speeches on the needs for reform at the FBI, its relationship with the private sector, its procedures, and even its image especially for recruiting purposes. He actually mentioned the importance of explaining the vision/purpose of the FBI because the government can't really attract capable people with the leverage of salaries, but only with the vision/purpose.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
If you ever worked in a large organization (or a bureaucracy) you would know very well that unless the director is expected to be there long enough to carry out an organizational vision he can't be as effective. It's just basic human nature, which in government is also amplified by the political factors.
I am sure that day to day operations are fine.

Not according to the previous director. He gave federal speeches on the needs for reform at the FBI, its relationship with the private sector, its procedures, and even its image especially for recruiting purposes. He actually mentioned the importance of explaining the vision/purpose of the FBI because the government can't really attract capable people with the leverage of salaries, but only with the vision/purpose.
First, the bolded part above is why there is no urgency to this, and it should be put near the bottom of Congress's priorities.

Second, it seems your point is that the current director is ineffective because of bureaucratic realities, rather than his own performance. Still not a sufficient reason to send this to the top of the pile of congressional business.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
First, the bolded part above is why there is no urgency to this, and it should be put near the bottom of Congress's priorities.

Second, it seems your point is that the current director is ineffective because of bureaucratic realities, rather than his own performance. Still not a sufficient reason to send this to the top of the pile of congressional business.
Well, I disagree.
First of all, urgency can be defined in different ways. Comey was let go on May. We're in July. By the time Wray goes through the approval procedures it might well be August or September. It's going to take three months before he can begin being "independent" from the bureaucrats working for him, and about six months before he can seriously begin implementing his vision of the FBI. This assuming that he's the effective person I think he is, and assuming that the large bureaucracy of the FBI doesn't push back as it usually a bureaucracy does with the "new boss." So it might take about 9-12 months before we have a 100% effective director with a broad, complete view of the bureau. So yes, it's as urgent as it can get.
I honestly don't care much about the reasons; I have no doubt that the current management is effective on day to day operations; yet, I don't care if the problem is in the bureaucracy (it is), because I am not discussing about what is right or not, I am discussing a very practical problem. The fact that the problem is in the bureaucracy doesn't change the fact that the FBI - a leading agency in the fight against crime and terrorism - is without the boss and the more we delay the more troubles we will have.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
Well, I disagree.
First of all, urgency can be defined in different ways. Comey was let go on May. We're in July. By the time Wray goes through the approval procedures it might well be August or September. It's going to take three months before he can begin being "independent" from the bureaucrats working for him, and about six months before he can seriously begin implementing his vision of the FBI. This assuming that he's the effective person I think he is, and assuming that the large bureaucracy of the FBI doesn't push back as it usually a bureaucracy does with the "new boss." So it might take about 9-12 months before we have a 100% effective director with a broad, complete view of the bureau. So yes, it's as urgent as it can get.
I honestly don't care much about the reasons; I have no doubt that the current management is effective on day to day operations; yet, I don't care if the problem is in the bureaucracy (it is), because I am not discussing about what is right or not, I am discussing a very practical problem. The fact that the problem is in the bureaucracy doesn't change the fact that the FBI - a leading agency in the fight against crime and terrorism - is without the boss and the more we delay the more troubles we will have.
I don't think any of it matters while Jeff Sessions is in charge, with all of his outdated and proven wrong ideas about law enforcement. Trump could nominate Bernie Sanders to FBI director, I would still say it's not the right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNut

Night Spring

macrumors G5
Jul 17, 2008
13,064
5,084
I also feel like they should wait. There's too much uncertainty right now over what could happen with Trump. If, for example, Trump is impeached or resigns in disgrace, we get stuck with an FBI director with a cloud of illegitimacy hanging over his head. The FBI and the American people deserve better than that.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,460
4,452
True, but technically speaking the position of FBI director is politically independent, that's why the term is 10 years.
Trumps picks can't be trusted to maintain independence. Let the position stay vacant until after the impeachment.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,264
USA
Well Trump isn't going to care for some of what came out of Wray's mouth today since he was pretty solid on not interfering with Mueller's investigation

"I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt," FBI Director nominee Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Further:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Wray if he would let the Judiciary Committee know if he witnessed or learned of "any efforts to interfere" with Mueller's work.

"Assuming that I can do it legally and appropriately, absolutely. I'm very committed to supporting Director Mueller in the special counsel investigation in whatever way is appropriate for me to do that," Wray said.

Pressed again by Feinstein, he said he "would consult with the appropriate officials to make sure that I'm not jeopardizing an investigation or anything like that. But I would consider an effort to tamper with Director Mueller's investigation to be unacceptable and inappropriate, and it would need to be dealt with very sternly and appropriately, indeed."
 

rdrr

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2003
529
596
NH
I believe it should be postponed.

When Mueller's team has wrapped up their investigation, we can worry about a permanent Comey replacement.
No, but he should recuse himself of anything going on with any current Trump Administration/Trump Campaign investigations.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
I don't understand, what makes him a lame duck? If he's running the bureau efficiently, then where's the problem?
He's lame duck because he has no long term, and he's there just as a temporary replacement. He's temporary, as the word interim implies.
No one in that position can run any large department efficiently as it should be.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,460
4,452
But I would consider an effort to tamper with Director Mueller's investigation to be unacceptable and inappropriate, and it would need to be dealt with very sternly and appropriately, indeed.
Maybe he's lying to save his own skin. You never know with Trump appointees.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,264
USA
He's lame duck because he has no long term, and he's there just as a temporary replacement. He's temporary, as the word interim implies.
No one in that position can run any large department efficiently as it should be.
Temporary is relative. It could be months, it could be years ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,536
Texas
Temporary is relative. It could be months, it could be years ;)
Ehehhe totally true, but you know that bureaucrats are very cautious especially when appointees are in the equation. They will naturally assume that the interim dude will leave shortly.