[Bob Seger]

What are the checks and balances in place regarding the position of the head of the FBI?

Anyone know?

[ronald reagan]

The FBI is a bureau/department/organization within the Justice Department. Headed by the Attorney's General. The FBI Director reports directly to the Attorney General, and colloborates with The Secretary of Homeland Security via the Office of National Intelligence. Oversight is provided by various committees and subcomittees in both the upper and lower chambers of congress. The committee most responsible for this is the Judicial Committee, in charge of the the Department of Justice. Other committees have specific oversight duties: intelligence, personnel, appropriations, etc.

Largely, the FBI will operate fairly independent of outside influence. The FBI director isn't a political appointment and seems to not directly serve at the pleasure of the president. Althought, being a federal employee, he *may* be subject to dismissal. Cabinet members are largely immune from being fired. Typically they are asked to resign, and do so. One exception from a previous statement, was in the mid 1990's the FBI director was removed by Clinton for misconduct. However, he was pressed to resign gracefully and willingly, but refused. Had he fought the dismissal, he would have been impeached by Congress for his misconduct. He took the firing. If only Clinton would have did the same thing.

[Granny Bear]

What are the checks and balances in place regarding the position of the head of the FBI?

Anyone know?

Undying loyalty to the Clinton family??

[TheRealThing]

What are the checks and balances in place regarding the position of the head of the FBI?

Anyone know?

In a word, Congress.

I'll be the first to admit that looks can be deceiving, but it's beginning to look like the head of the FBI, who was placed in his position in 2013 by Barack Obama BTW, has a formidable buffer in the person of the USAG in place between himself and Congress. And again as looks go, it would seem the Congress can be ignored if the AG determines that is how he/she wants it to be. Up until the last decade showed me differently, I thought only the Lord Himself could ignore the United States Congress.

[Bob Seger]

Looks like Trey Gowdy got Comey a little hot under the collar today.....

[Bob Seger]

It is becoming more and more apparent that Comey has messed this whole investigation up from the start..


The big question here is, is it incompetence or was he pressured to play politics?

How close is he to being asked to resign?

Should he in turn be investigated?

[Granny Bear]

It is becoming more and more apparent that Comey has messed this whole investigation up from the start..

I couldn't agree more!!


The big question here is, is it incompetence or was he pressured to play politics?

I would consider those to be the same, but I would vote for political pressure.


How close is he to being asked to resign?

Depends on who wins the election.


Should he in turn be investigated?

Yes!! But by whom?? It should be an independent, apolitical, non corrupt person. WHERE would you find that anyway??

..

[TheRealThing]

^^Here is the thing about all this. From George Washington all the way up through the George H term, all of those administrations were pro America. They existed to further the best interests of this nation. We had a bit of a globalist hiccup with the Clinton Administration followed by a resurgence of the norm with the George W administration.

Enter the over the top, globalist inspired administration of Barack Obama, and all of the work done by those gone on before is torn down, unraveled or undone in the name of the brotherhood of man doctrine. It was the stuff of "fundamentally transforming America" as was promised by his coming administration. We stand therefore, after eight years of said transformation, at a fork in the road of US history. The left fork will take us further down the road of the globalist under the direction of Hillary Clinton, (which BTW is our ultimate fate at some point according to prophesy). Or we take the fork to the right on which I believe we will gain at least a temporary reprieve or resurgence of Americanism under the direction of one Donald J Trump. And speaking of all that has been undone by this administration and as Obama himself has just said in a speech meant for the black community, "I would consider it a personal insult if the black community does not support Hillary Clinton," and "there is much work left to do."

That's why it is such a pivotal moment in history for the left. Reportedly, Mr Obama sees himself as the Ronald Reagan of the left, and his work then in order to be effectively continued, must be carried on by the next torch bearer in the person of Hillary Clinton. And then we had the FBI investigation and all of that came under threat. And make no mistake, what with the certain coming of Supreme Court appointments, and the ongoing props for social programs such as ObamaCare on the line, this fork in the road is a once in a lifetime, maybe even once in history and epic event. The populace if educated as to the actual ramifications of what we are about to do, would never IMO, go for it. For example, we hear the term 'single payer system' being bandied about on the news nearly every day. Not many seem to understand exactly what the term actually means even though we already have a single payer system in place at the national level at the Veterans Administration.

Said VA is fraught and rife with atrocity against the well being of the very ones they were formed specifically and singularly to serve. People die waiting for appointments, while doctors and staff get bonuses, and the list of affronts only gets worse from there. In one case being reported the bodies of vets passed on were stored unburied in body bags. One of which burst open and the liquefied remains of a US Veteran went everywhere. These are the sickening and shameful repercussions of a government directed single payer system. So, if you want to know what a single payer system might well entail, look no farther.

I believe James Comey is a conflicted man. I do think the investigation was done right and I do not believe those conducting it are a bunch of weasels. On the contrary, I believe the investigation was replete. When Mr Comey says "we are not a bunch of weasels," he's speaking of the entirety of the FBI. He is the Director and it was his decision, according to Loretta Lynch fresh from exposure of her clandestine tarmac encounter with William Jefferson Clinton. AG Lynch said at that point that she was sorry, and that she would accept whatever the FBI recommendation happened to be. So, Mr Comey told us IMHO, the exact truth of the matter. The investigation was done to FBI standards, his decision as accepted by the AG however, was subject to and perhaps mitigated by opinion. Did he not say that in his opinion, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" before the court?

[jetpilot]

What are the checks and balances in place regarding the position of the head of the FBI?

Anyone know?

The taxpayers sign his checks and his balance went through the roof after looking the other way (or worse) on the H Clinton lawlessness.

[The Urban Sombrero]

So, we are painted the picture of body bags in warehouses leaking fluids as the inevitable outcome of single payer insurance. Now, there are good reasons why single payer is perhaps not optimum in a country of 350 million people, but the "fluid in dem bags" ain't one of them. The extreme is not the norm and should not be posited as such, in my view.

[TheRealThing]

So, we are painted the picture of body bags in warehouses leaking fluids as the inevitable outcome of single payer insurance. Now, there are good reasons why single payer is perhaps not optimum in a country of 350 million people, but the "fluid in dem bags" ain't one of them. The extreme is not the norm and should not be posited as such, in my view.

The long waits to see VA docs, the horror stories of misdiagnosis and botched treatment, and the general sad state of affairs IS the norm. Or have you missed all the atrocity reported of late in the news? The point is the VA is funded by the government, a single payer system which is rife with issue.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The long waits to see VA docs, the horror stories of misdiagnosis and botched treatment, and the general sad state of affairs IS the norm. Or have you missed all the atrocity reported of late in the news? The point is the VA is funded by the government, a single payer system which is rife with issue.

I also talk to a lot of veterans who are quite happy with the service and treatment they receive at the VA.

As for private insurance, it is no dance with the Savior. It is rife with folks such as my neighbor. She suffers from an immune system disease and is denied a treatment that both she and her physician found effective.

Shall we really play tit for tat on horror stories?

[TheRealThing]

I also talk to a lot of veterans who are quite happy with the service and treatment they receive at the VA.

As for private insurance, it is no dance with the Savior. It is rife with folks such as my neighbor. She suffers from an immune system disease and is denied a treatment that both she and her physician found effective.

Shall we really play tit for tat on horror stories?

You can play whatever you'd like. I am a vet, and I certainly know what my experience has been. But apart from that it is still amazing to think there's some relabeled BGR poster coming on here who imagines he can adequately debunk national news where the VA is concerned. :please:

[catdoggy]

I keep hearing this loud whining noise coming from the far fringes of the right. Good thing it's fainting. WHAAAAAAAAAA

[The Urban Sombrero]

You can play whatever you'd like. I am a vet, and I certainly know what my experience has been. But apart from that it is still amazing to think there's some relabeled BGR poster coming on here who imagines he can adequately debunk national news where the VA is concerned. :please:

Once again, you suggest I am "relabeled." Once again, I say that is inaccurate.

Why has national news remained silent as private insurance has chosen larger stock dividends over people time and time again?
We all know the reason.

[TheRealThing]

Once again, you suggest I am "relabeled." Once again, I say that is inaccurate.

Why has national news remained silent as private insurance has chosen larger stock dividends over people time and time again?
We all know the reason.

Fact; Mr Obama and his band of mentally deficient marionettes knew they'd need to enlist the full backing of the health insurance industry to get ObamaCare off the ground. Grand promises were therefore made to industry giants in which the American populace en-toto were to flock to them for coverage under the--- m-a-n-d-a-t-e. How could they lose right? LOL, time told how, as only a few insurance providers are left standing from among the original field. Dems were spitting contempt for profiteering health insurance companies in justification for ramming the mandate through in the dead of night. So what was their(the Dems) remedy? Why just to cut a mutual assured destruction pact with, you guessed it, the demon health insurance companies.

Fact; All of America were forced into four identical brackets with matching copays so that the insurance 'marketplace' would be fixed and entirely predictable for cost modeling purposes.

Fact; Government has demonstrated yet again that private enterprise and government are strange bedfellows. In other words, successful businesses cannot come into existence via federal decree.

Fact; The national in-the-tank-for-Dems news are silent on an awful lot of things that directly impact the lives of every American. FOX News on the other hand, has been quite vocal and persistent in their obligation to give the people the news. Therefore the word is out there if one would care to tune in. And I'm not speaking of every news presentation on that network either. Varney & Company, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Judge Jeanine, and occasionally Bill O'Reilly are good places to focus one's attention.

Opinion; The main stream media are not about to report things that hurt Democrats.

[Granny Bear]

^
Didn't realize you were a veteran! Thank you for your service TRT.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Fact; Mr Obama and his band of mentally deficient marionettes knew they'd need to enlist the full backing of the health insurance industry to get ObamaCare off the ground. Grand promises were therefore made to industry giants in which the American populace en-toto were to flock to them for coverage under the--- m-a-n-d-a-t-e. How could they lose right? LOL, time told how, as only a few insurance providers are left standing from among the original field. Dems were spitting contempt for profiteering health insurance companies in justification for ramming the mandate through in the dead of night. So what was their(the Dems) remedy? Why just to cut a mutual assured destruction pact with, you guessed it, the demon health insurance companies.

Fact; All of America were forced into four identical brackets with matching copays so that the insurance 'marketplace' would be fixed and entirely predictable for cost modeling purposes.

Fact; Government has demonstrated yet again that private enterprise and government are strange bedfellows. In other words, successful businesses cannot come into existence via federal decree.

Fact; The national in-the-tank-for-Dems news are silent on an awful lot of things that directly impact the lives of every American. FOX News on the other hand, has been quite vocal and persistent in their obligation to give the people the news. Therefore the word is out there if one would care to tune in. And I'm not speaking of every news presentation on that network either. Varney & Company, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Judge Jeanine, and occasionally Bill O'Reilly are good places to focus one's attention.

Opinion; The main stream media are not about to report things that hurt Democrats.

Note: I am not speaking in defense of the Affordable Care Act. I am suggesting that giving ourselves over to corporate overlords puts us in no safer a position than entrusting ourselves to Big Brother. If one says, "Government good: big business bad," that's a simplification leading to serious error. If one says, "Big Business good: government bad," that's a simplification that leads to error.

Survival of the fittest is not my idea of a good healthcare strategy. Neither is the non-working poor get braces but the working poor do not.

[TheRealThing]

^
Didn't realize you were a veteran! Thank you for your service TRT.

You are so welcome Granny.

[TheRealThing]

I keep hearing this loud whining noise coming from the far fringes of the right. Good thing it's fainting. WHAAAAAAAAAA

Have you considered just being quiet?

[The Urban Sombrero]

A suggestion has been made that Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, et al. just give the uncomfortable, unvarnished truth.

Were this presented tongue-in-cheek, it would be funny. That it was presented amongst a "This is fact and that is fact" littany? Also comical.

[Bob Seger]

I keep hearing this loud whining noise coming from the far fringes of the right. Good thing it's fainting. WHAAAAAAAAAA

Ah, but the cries from the wussified keep crying from bowels of the night?

hh:

[Bob Seger]

Once again, you suggest I am "relabeled." Once again, I say that is inaccurate.

Why has national news remained silent as private insurance has chosen larger stock dividends over people time and time again?
We all know the reason.

The national news is a liberal bought and paid for entity.

[TheRealThing]

A suggestion has been made that Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, et al. just give the uncomfortable, unvarnished truth.

Were this presented tongue-in-cheek, it would be funny. That it was presented amongst a "This is fact and that is fact" littany? Also comical.

I've seen a lot of posts in my time, and of all the thousands of them I've read over the years, only I have used the term et al, but you've copied just about every last inflection, colloquialism and vocabulary nuance I employ when writing, so why not steal that one too, right?

You're wrong. The suggestion made was that if one would care to hear actual news, he might want to start with those shows. There are others on Fox Business, 'Making Money' with Charles Payne, and 'After The Bell' with Mellissa Francis and David Asman are two more very good ones.

As far as the rest of the lame streamers go, I for one can do without their biased and jaded DNC talking point engorged blather. And anybody who tries to tell you they could not clearly see the favoritism shown to Hillary and Kaine by Lester Holt and Elaine Quijano is willfully brain dead. The whole purpose of The Washington Post seems dedicated to bringing Trump down, and NOBODY other than FOX is adequately covering stories such as the following; "An arms dealer who had threatened to reveal potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton's alleged role in arming Islamist militants until federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their case against him Tuesday, told Fox News the case has cost him everything." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...lings.html

Bet you didn't catch that one on CBS, and why was this story not covered? Because obviously it might not look so good for Hillary.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I've seen a lot of posts in my time, and of all the thousands of them I've read over the years, only I have used the term et al, but you've copied just about every last inflection, colloquialism and vocabulary nuance I employ when writing, so why not steal that one too, right?

You're wrong. The suggestion made was that if one would care to hear actual news, he might want to start with those shows. There are others on Fox Business, 'Making Money' with Charles Payne, and 'After The Bell' with Mellissa Francis and David Asman are two more very good ones.

As far as the rest of the lame streamers go, I for one can do without their biased and jaded DNC talking point engorged blather. And anybody who tries to tell you they could not clearly see the favoritism shown to Hillary and Kaine by Lester Holt and Elaine Quijano is willfully brain dead. The whole purpose of The Washington Post seems dedicated to bringing Trump down, and NOBODY other than FOX is adequately covering stories such as the following; "An arms dealer who had threatened to reveal potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton's alleged role in arming Islamist militants until federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their case against him Tuesday, told Fox News the case has cost him everything." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...lings.html

Bet you didn't catch that one on CBS, and why was this story not covered? Because obviously it might not look so good for Hillary.

Would not an "Islamic militant" describe a wide array of combatants? Is his allegation that HRC knowingly engaged in deals that armed jihadists? There was a time it was policy to arm a certain group of "Islamic militants" fighting the Soviet Union, the Taliban. Ditto Saddam Hussein and his "Islamic militants."

Context is all. This point is not tomfoolery. It is vital.

As for et al.? I use it a fair amount. You write effectively and forcefully, but I don't copy you.

[TheRealThing]

Would not an "Islamic militant" describe a wide array of combatants? Is his allegation that HRC knowingly engaged in deals that armed jihadists? There was a time it was policy to arm a certain group of "Islamic militants" fighting the Soviet Union, the Taliban. Ditto Saddam Hussein and his "Islamic militants."

Context is all. This point is not tomfoolery. It is vital.

As for et al.? I use it a fair amount. You write effectively and forcefully, but I don't copy you.

I'm sorry, was there a point somewhere in this gibberish?

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm sorry, was there a point somewhere in this gibberish?

There was a question. You referenced an allegation about HRC and "Islamic militants."

"Islamic militants" and jihadists are not necessarily one and the same. See the recent history referenced.

[TheRealThing]

There was a question. You referenced an allegation about HRC and "Islamic militants."

"Islamic militants" and jihadists are not necessarily one and the same. See the recent history referenced.

So the thing that stands out to you about the guy the DOJ just turned into mincemeat, was not the strong likelihood that he was about to spill the beans as to Hill's involvement just weeks before the election, it was instead the background noise associated with the left's preoccupation with relabeling the murderous thugs running every backstreet and alley in the Middle East? But in our President's actions I can see why doing so would be so important in your eyes, after all, look how much damage he's done to ISIS by relabeling then as ISIL. I'm telling you, nothing short of awe inspiring. Oh if Barack had only been there to advise General Norman Schwarzkopf! :please:

[The Urban Sombrero]

So the thing that stands out to you about the guy the DOJ just turned into mincemeat, was not the strong likelihood that he was about to spill the beans as to Hill's involvement just weeks before the election, it was instead the background noise associated with the left's preoccupation with relabeling the murderous thugs running every backstreet and alley in the Middle East? But in our President's actions I can see why doing so would be so important in your eyes, after all, look how much damage he's done to ISIS by relabeling then as ISIL. I'm telling you, nothing short of awe inspiring. Oh if Barack had only been there to advise General Norman Schwarzkopf! :please:

Is every Islamic militant a jihadist? Has American policy of the last thirty years clarified that?

ISIS is not the army of any recognized nation with clearly defined borders. President Obama chooses to not use the term which, in the Islamic world, carries prophetic significance. It is fine to disagree with that choice and the reasoning behind it, but, in my view, disingenuous to suggest President Obama is not serious about the dangers ISIS poses.

[TheRealThing]

Is every Islamic militant a jihadist? Has American policy of the last thirty years clarified that?

ISIS is not the army of any recognized nation with clearly defined borders. President Obama chooses to not use the term which, in the Islamic world, carries prophetic significance. It is fine to disagree with that choice and the reasoning behind it, but, in my view, disingenuous to suggest President Obama is not serious about the dangers ISIS poses.

Really? And when exactly would you say he made the leap from being completely wrong about them, as he was when he referred to them as the JV, to what according to you is his present highly enlightened state in which he knows exactly how to handle them?

I don't know how serious he is, but I don't think he's got the first clue how to handle them. I know one thing for sure, his turbocharged crawfishing has yielded nothing but grief for the Middle Eastern nations and the consensus among the military reportedly, is that war is much more likely now than 2007.