Obama To Nominate Republican James Comey To Head FBI
Source: International Business Times
By Howard Koplowitz | June 20 2013 5:05 PM
President Barack Obama is expected to tap James Comey to succeed Robert Mueller as FBI director on Friday, Politico reported Thursday afternoon.
Comey, 52, is a Republican who served as deputy U.S. attorney general in George W. Bush’s administration from 2003 to 2005. Before that, he was the Manhattan U.S. attorney from January 2002 to December 2003.
Obama will nominate Comey during an afternoon ceremony on Friday, according to Politico. Comey will need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If Comey’s nomination goes through, he’ll replace Mueller, who has been FBI director since 2001.
Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-nominate-republican-james-comey-head-fbi-photo-1317105
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
fasttense
(17,301 posts)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022925543
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022920529
In March 2004, Comey, Mueller, and several Bush DoJ appointees almost resigned over metadata!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023025949
we'll see. I almost had an apoplectic 
!!!!!!!! moment.
Ter
(4,281 posts)You defend him on EVERYTHING. He can do no wrong with you.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I would think that after 4.5 years of being pragmatic and trying to reach across the aisle he would realize the the GOP HATE HIS GUTS. I'm sure when they go back home after a meeting with him they wash their hands with lye.
They hate him. So why does he continue to nominate Republicans to these positions? It cannot be because there are no qualified Democrats. Perhaps he is doing this so when the scandals of the FBI are fully revealed (we got a taste this week with the public acknowledgement the FBI uses drones over U.S. cities) he can point to a Repuke.
That is, in my view, a very poor reason for his actions.
It appears almost as if as the various "scandals" are unravelling his ability to be rational is waning. I hope not because he is the only thing that stands between us and hell.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)masochist.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)"Comey, 52, is a Republican who served as deputy U.S. attorney general in George W. Bush’s administration from 2003 to 2005. Before that, he was the Manhattan U.S. attorney from January 2002 to December 2003. "
Of course he is.
...
Goddammit! We voted for change, and this is like *GW Bush's 4th term.
Jeezus on a tortilla!
Godammit!
Fuckers!
*GW Bush : Worst President EVER.
Why , WHY?? would Obama choose to staff his office with GWB Toadies.?
(This is a serious question. Any of the answers I can think of, are not pretty.)
Maybe an Obama insider will explain it to me. My ears are wide open.
C'mon, ProSense. Help me make sense of this.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
PSPS
(13,634 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
name not needed
(11,660 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts) 
No Democrats are qualified for the position? Not even an Independent? And does it have to be a Republican that has ties to Bush? Really? Epic fail. What is next a unicorn on fire crashing into my home haha?
Herlong
(649 posts)You'd think since we elected a democrat he'd be all, "I'm a democrat, I'll put democrats in positions of power." But our country is so fucked up, you'd almost think NSA has been spying on everyone for so long, even Obama is a pawn.
cstanleytech
(26,349 posts)I dont recall any part of it that says they will only appoint their own party members to all key positions.
John2
(2,730 posts)really losing the base of the Democratic Party on a lotta issues with that attitude. If he wanted to be a Republican, he should have ran as a Republican so your answer is the wrong answer. He answers to the people that elected him to office. His party will answer too.
I don't agree with his Foreign Policy. I don't agree with introducing the CPI crap. He placed a Republican as Secretary of Defense. He has a Republican as Head of the CIA. He is now placing a Republican as Head of the FBI. He placed a Republican along with a conservative Wall Street Democrat to decide on Economic Policies (Simpson\Bowles). He fought for a Republican Healthcare Policy. In the end, he will ok this pipeline, because of Wall Street Democrats and Republicans.
John Kerry, his Secretary of State, is very good Pals with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, whom endorsed him. The people he placed in charged of the Treasury Department are Wall Street people. The Head of his Education Department was a Republican. His representative in Chicago, was pushing Obama's education Policies. It was the same as Republicans. He doubled down on Surveillance of people with the same Bush Policies. In fact Obama is making the case for their Policies. He is not a friend of Liberal ideas or the Left. Just what Liberal ideas has President Obama fought for?
What really irks me is the regime change Policy and him putting preconditions on anyone disagreeing with Israel. These Wars are in the interest of Israel not me or the United States. And what is really bad about it, I'm paying my tax dollars to arm Terrorists. It is really bad when somebody I dispise, like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin can use that as propaganda to humiliate you. The bottomline, he is really getting under the skins of many people that placed their confidence in him with this arrogant attitude, My way or the Highway. It is just proving all his critics point. Why did he just take for granted, people on the Left targeted rightwing Tea Party groups, or insisting on a bipartisan commission to look at voting irregularities, when it is obvious, the GOP was violating laws? When the Democratic Party loses, then lets talk about what he has the right to do. Hillary ain't President yet.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)
cstanleytech
(26,349 posts)confirmation vote?
neverforget
(9,437 posts)that is qualified and is a Democrat or leans that way.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I just don't get it......
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The guys credentials are that he knows how to stand up say no and then let them go on doing what they should not be doing.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Republican Party.
John2
(2,730 posts)think these Liberal organizations need to find, someone really representing their ideas to run against the Democratic establishment. They need a Tea Party movement of their own to put these people on notice. You got to recruit these people and encourage them to run against the old guard. If you like Elizabeth Warren better than Hillary, encourage her to run and get out there and recruit her. This guy, Ellis of Minnesota is more in line with Liberal ideas. Encourage him to run. There are people out there, they just don't think they can buck the establishment. You don't need a Nader type candidate, but actually candidates within the Party with the guts to stand up to these people. They have assumed, we do not care about our issues as much as the right, and take the attitude, they can just run over us. There is no middle, you are either for something or not!
RC
(25,592 posts)I can't make it fit anywhere now.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Either Obama lied his way into office, with help, or someone took him aside and told him it would be a shame if anything happened to his wife and/or kids. Those are the only two things that I can think of, that would explain the major differences between his campaign rhetoric and his actions.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)his contempt for liberals seems very genuine to me.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Ask Bush Cheney
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)all his appointees are Republicans or conservatives of record?
I am so tired of this.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I'm going to skip right past all of the realpolitik, and that I dislike the fact that this man gets credit for diluting the effluvia of the Bush Administration with a single teaspoon of legal threat for about thirty days among eight long years of unbridled malevolence.
Instead I'll just focus on how merely naming Comey is a very direct threat against the Republican Party and in particular the Bush wing of the party.
Comey's one claim to fame was that he effectively ended Dick Cheney's shadow Presidency by forcing George Bush to come to terms with the fact that he wasn't doing his job. Comey was the guy who documented an array of the Bush Administration's crimes, Cheney's in particular, crimes which were never prosecuted.
He knows how the documentation was generated, who hid it, and where. He is a living key to a secret history to which the President himself may not yet be privy.
President Obama, now in his second term and no longer prevented from throwing open the books on prior Presidential administrations, would be able to direct Comey to identify and release damaging information from the Bush the Dimmer Administration, and Comey would not be in a position to cover for his former masters, for if he were to resist in any way he would be the first against the wall.
This is a big, big deal to me. It suggests to me that the President is at least swiveling the turrets of criminal investigation against the Republican Party, and the most criminal of them will recognize this move as the same.
You don't have to believe me yet. Watch for Karl and Dick's flying monkeys to savage Comey on the Sunday propaganda circuit. Then perhaps you'll believe me.