Things may not be so simple. Read David French in today’s NYTs:
”By stepping down now, as the conservative writer Erick Erickson observed, Wray has created a “legal obstacle to Trump trying to bypass the Senate confirmation process.”
Here’s why. According to the Vacancies Reform Act, if a vacancy occurs in a Senate-confirmed position, the president can temporarily replace that appointee (such as the F.B.I. director) only with a person who has already received Senate confirmation or with a person who’s served in a senior capacity in the agency (at the GS-15 pay scale) for at least 90 days in the year before the resignation.
Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s chosen successor at the F.B.I., meets neither of these criteria. He’s not in a Senate-confirmed position, and he’s not been a senior federal employee in the Department of Justice in the last year. That means he can’t walk into the job on Day 1. Trump will have to select someone else to lead the F.B.I. immediately, or the position will default to the “first assistant to the office.”
Geez. Did anyone tell Wray to change his mind, challenge any firing by Trump in the courts? Clearly, Congress wrote the rules for the FBI director appointment. Find the loophole!
I am getting a bit tired of "Don't obey in advance" for those in positions like Wray. For many, it is fear, compliance, cowardice, sycophant-ism, or perhaps personal integrity, but for Wray, he's got Trump's intel, he's worked under Trump, and he doesn't want to be Comey-X-canned. Would you?
Now, Ernst, different, as she is no decorated veteran, if confirming Hegseth, just because of cowardice, as it disrespects EVERY single military person who served or is serving and their families as Trump can't take that experience as he didn't have one and he has no worthy convictions (no pun intended) he stands for.
The entire Congress would be if they confirm because of cowardice and no norms being followed as they all know he won't norm anything nor will Patel, Gabbard, RFK, worm, Jr, Dr. OZ-me-vitamin-grifter, or Bondi and those conflicts of interests, entanglements, WHAT?
Smith didn't obey, Garland did. Joe and Mika did. Make no mistake I don't like to see it happen but the incoming wasn't ever even legitimately POTUS, I opine.
What was he convicted of in NY? Hush Money, they say? NO. Fraud doesn't get you a previous position when you committed a crime to get the position. People think as transactionally as Trump. Big picture is what was missed. Now, is for calling it all out, not pointing to US, or boomeranging blame.
Don't states administer their own elections? Not according to SCOTUS tossing the 14th, for the entire country, to avoid chaos, and mooting an actual piece of the Constitution.
We all knew this was fear of what could be done and voters weren't the answer for this bigger than we are moment. I'm no jurist seeing evidence, are you?
I was called "liberal" Alex Jones for suggesting that, given the NOVEL situation, that includes indictments of national security, indictments of his previous Oath of Office he doesn't "support" if we use things like actual semantics, CO determining he incited an insurrection, officially, will now aid and abet those in that insurrection, violations of the Logan, Hatch, Emoluments acts and clauses, first amendment clear violations, and an illegal AF billionaire who just paid to elect Trump, who gets billions from the GOVERNMENT he'd like to destroy, with no NORM of being elected or nominated to anything official, no different than Russia, to "toll" the election until Trump got into court on his three indictments.
He has no MANDATE other than P2025. Was CONVICTED of federal election interference pre-election 2024 for the 2016 election.
Perversing the legal system is his schtick and NOT ONE THING was done to hold the SCOTUS, or anyone else, accountable. But Joe was old, right? Norms? Checks and balances, you say? Self-Arbiters who write excuses in the WSJ opinion section? Please.
When you have already been indicted and convicted, yet not sentenced, Merchan has one option as this case was not indicted, prosecuted or convicted when he was a sitting POTUS nor were the actual criminal acts committed as such. This one gets the boot that's the OBEYING IN ADVANCE we need to be looking at.
Smith did Garlands "norm". Used no law, congressional or constitutional, to end those cases, only a DOJ memo/procedure under the Clinton/Nixon admins.
He still hasn't proven or no judge has defined his official acts for immunity. What are they? Did he incite an insurrection? Chutkan never responded; so is he immune? And for what? The Constitutional Acts are clear and the presumption of immunity in those requiring Congress aren't automatically immune.
Trump's pathology is getting in his way. Musk, soon, will too.
Primaried? OKAY. We The People need to make sure there is a midterm because if their is, no matter how they keep people suppressed, the only way they win, voting suppression, or interference, who would worry about being primaried, they'll lose? He stated at his patriot gala we are going to look at elections. Excuse me?
The SCOTUS is conservative but are they into being federalist and originalist by committing partisan hacks of law breaking, too? We'll see as they are on a knife's edge close to doing as such.
Bragg and James are center stage and he wants those out of the way and erased. That is THEIR job and our focus, as Trump will never respect norms, or previous guardrails, is to be better at defining things plainly, like NO YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR VOTE, and not assigning blame.
I wish everyone would focus on speaking to us little people on what we CAN DO RATHER THAN citing norms, asking what if's and how will's because that ship has sailed.
I'd like to send the Montana ruling on the transgender ban stay to the SCOTUS. That's how the guardrails hold. That's what the SCOTUS needs to see and how concise and easy the law works when you're not a partisan hack interpreting for dead Founders you know would NEVER support anything Robert's put on pieces of TP and called it his "ruling for the ages", got a few pats on the back, for his POTUS criminal IMMUNITY kingship, and eked it out on the very last day. It was because of the difficulty and immense thought required.
I could have written that BS in 5 minutes and had a round at MAL that afternoon with Trump. I'm not Chief Justice, however, just snarky.
Things may not be so simple. Read David French in today’s NYTs:
”By stepping down now, as the conservative writer Erick Erickson observed, Wray has created a “legal obstacle to Trump trying to bypass the Senate confirmation process.”
Here’s why. According to the Vacancies Reform Act, if a vacancy occurs in a Senate-confirmed position, the president can temporarily replace that appointee (such as the F.B.I. director) only with a person who has already received Senate confirmation or with a person who’s served in a senior capacity in the agency (at the GS-15 pay scale) for at least 90 days in the year before the resignation.
Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s chosen successor at the F.B.I., meets neither of these criteria. He’s not in a Senate-confirmed position, and he’s not been a senior federal employee in the Department of Justice in the last year. That means he can’t walk into the job on Day 1. Trump will have to select someone else to lead the F.B.I. immediately, or the position will default to the “first assistant to the office.”
So, if Trump appoints Patel in defiance of the Act, who is going to stop him?
Reader's digest version? No One.
The trouble with Trump and everyone who deals with Trump is that NO means nothing to him.
😔 Going to hell in a handbasket. 😔
Geez. Did anyone tell Wray to change his mind, challenge any firing by Trump in the courts? Clearly, Congress wrote the rules for the FBI director appointment. Find the loophole!
Do we know if Wray has had his life threatened? He did have the decency to stand up to the Orange Toad after selected by him.
I am getting a bit tired of "Don't obey in advance" for those in positions like Wray. For many, it is fear, compliance, cowardice, sycophant-ism, or perhaps personal integrity, but for Wray, he's got Trump's intel, he's worked under Trump, and he doesn't want to be Comey-X-canned. Would you?
Now, Ernst, different, as she is no decorated veteran, if confirming Hegseth, just because of cowardice, as it disrespects EVERY single military person who served or is serving and their families as Trump can't take that experience as he didn't have one and he has no worthy convictions (no pun intended) he stands for.
The entire Congress would be if they confirm because of cowardice and no norms being followed as they all know he won't norm anything nor will Patel, Gabbard, RFK, worm, Jr, Dr. OZ-me-vitamin-grifter, or Bondi and those conflicts of interests, entanglements, WHAT?
Smith didn't obey, Garland did. Joe and Mika did. Make no mistake I don't like to see it happen but the incoming wasn't ever even legitimately POTUS, I opine.
What was he convicted of in NY? Hush Money, they say? NO. Fraud doesn't get you a previous position when you committed a crime to get the position. People think as transactionally as Trump. Big picture is what was missed. Now, is for calling it all out, not pointing to US, or boomeranging blame.
Don't states administer their own elections? Not according to SCOTUS tossing the 14th, for the entire country, to avoid chaos, and mooting an actual piece of the Constitution.
We all knew this was fear of what could be done and voters weren't the answer for this bigger than we are moment. I'm no jurist seeing evidence, are you?
I was called "liberal" Alex Jones for suggesting that, given the NOVEL situation, that includes indictments of national security, indictments of his previous Oath of Office he doesn't "support" if we use things like actual semantics, CO determining he incited an insurrection, officially, will now aid and abet those in that insurrection, violations of the Logan, Hatch, Emoluments acts and clauses, first amendment clear violations, and an illegal AF billionaire who just paid to elect Trump, who gets billions from the GOVERNMENT he'd like to destroy, with no NORM of being elected or nominated to anything official, no different than Russia, to "toll" the election until Trump got into court on his three indictments.
He has no MANDATE other than P2025. Was CONVICTED of federal election interference pre-election 2024 for the 2016 election.
Perversing the legal system is his schtick and NOT ONE THING was done to hold the SCOTUS, or anyone else, accountable. But Joe was old, right? Norms? Checks and balances, you say? Self-Arbiters who write excuses in the WSJ opinion section? Please.
When you have already been indicted and convicted, yet not sentenced, Merchan has one option as this case was not indicted, prosecuted or convicted when he was a sitting POTUS nor were the actual criminal acts committed as such. This one gets the boot that's the OBEYING IN ADVANCE we need to be looking at.
Smith did Garlands "norm". Used no law, congressional or constitutional, to end those cases, only a DOJ memo/procedure under the Clinton/Nixon admins.
He still hasn't proven or no judge has defined his official acts for immunity. What are they? Did he incite an insurrection? Chutkan never responded; so is he immune? And for what? The Constitutional Acts are clear and the presumption of immunity in those requiring Congress aren't automatically immune.
Trump's pathology is getting in his way. Musk, soon, will too.
Primaried? OKAY. We The People need to make sure there is a midterm because if their is, no matter how they keep people suppressed, the only way they win, voting suppression, or interference, who would worry about being primaried, they'll lose? He stated at his patriot gala we are going to look at elections. Excuse me?
The SCOTUS is conservative but are they into being federalist and originalist by committing partisan hacks of law breaking, too? We'll see as they are on a knife's edge close to doing as such.
Bragg and James are center stage and he wants those out of the way and erased. That is THEIR job and our focus, as Trump will never respect norms, or previous guardrails, is to be better at defining things plainly, like NO YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR VOTE, and not assigning blame.
I wish everyone would focus on speaking to us little people on what we CAN DO RATHER THAN citing norms, asking what if's and how will's because that ship has sailed.
I'd like to send the Montana ruling on the transgender ban stay to the SCOTUS. That's how the guardrails hold. That's what the SCOTUS needs to see and how concise and easy the law works when you're not a partisan hack interpreting for dead Founders you know would NEVER support anything Robert's put on pieces of TP and called it his "ruling for the ages", got a few pats on the back, for his POTUS criminal IMMUNITY kingship, and eked it out on the very last day. It was because of the difficulty and immense thought required.
I could have written that BS in 5 minutes and had a round at MAL that afternoon with Trump. I'm not Chief Justice, however, just snarky.
What about the article about the vacancies reform act? Doest that contradict your pov?
I worry the damage done by ending the 10-year norm is worse. Hopefully I'm wrong.