Who Should Replace James Comey At The FBI?

Every week on Monday, the WoW! writers, community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question : Who Should Replace James Comey At The FBI?


Don Surber: My candidate to replace James Comey at the FBI would be someone within the agency who is not Andy McCabe. The Hillary pardon — and that is what the non-indictment was — evidently tore the agency  apart.

Some agents resent giving her a pass. Some agents resent the October Surprise in which Comey, either by choice or stupidity, wrote a letter to Congress that re-opened the case.
Some agents also liked Comey. He was a good boss who made a helluva mistake last July.

Another possibility is someone from his list of 21 Supreme Court nominees. I would be fine with any of them.

Trump knows he needs to heal the FBI. Someone flashy will not do that. FBI agents are lawyers who would respect a judge. Perhaps that ultimately is the answer.

 Mike McDaniel: James Comey’s replacement at the FBI should be a seasoned FBI agent--an actual investigator, not an administrative drone; there are people who are great cops and great leaders as well--and a confirmed conservative.

But the Democrats will scream bloody murder! They’ll demand a Democrat they can be sure will do whatever is necessary to support whatever narrative they cook up.

Let them.

By “conservative,” I mean a man--or woman, whose true allegiance is to the Constitution and to the rule of law. Someone who not only does things right, but who does the right thing. Someone who will see that Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are properly and professionally investigated, and who, at the least sign of undue political influence, will follow the chain of command, and if such influence is not ended, resign. They will also be someone who will investigate the suppose collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia and if there is no there there, end the idiocy.

Such a person must be a straight arrow, and when pursuing criminals, terrorists and spies, absolutely indefatigable and ruthless. And they need to be a conservative--perhaps a Republican.

But won’t that show bad faith? Won’t that be partisan?

No, not if they possess the qualities I’ve described. In that case, their party affiliation won’t matter. But even if they were partisan, which party is “the resistance?” Which party is working assiduously to prevent government from working? Which party is trying to run a lawfully elected president out of office based on nothing? Which party is resisting the Constitution, the rule of law, and half, perhaps more, of the American people? Which party is building toward a paroxysm of rage, violence and hatred? Which party is working to destroy free speech?

Which party isn’t doing all those things?

Oh yes, we surely need a confirmed Democrat in charge of the FBI about now, don’t we?

It would take the Stupid Party to think they should give in to the Democrats in this or anything, because if they do, the Democrats will appreciate it and be nice to them. How many times do the Democrats have to pull away the football at the last moment before the Stupid Party learns? If Democrats were in power, Eric Holder, Janet Reno, Loretta Lynch, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Perhaps Joe Biden would be put in charge of the FBI, and they would not hesitate to do their duty to their maximum leader and party, the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. Gratitude is not in them.

Appoint someone that will be loyal to the Constitution, first, last and always. Ignore the Democrat’s and the media’s wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and screaming, spittle-flinging temper tantrums, and the rest will take care of itself.


 Rob Miller: We don't need a judge or a lawyer per se. We need a top cop and investigator who's smart,fearless, honest and isn't connected to the Clintons or Obama in any way, which leaves Andrew McCabe out. In short, we need someone along the lines of J Edgar Hoover. Regardless of some of his personal proclivities, he made the Bureau an effective force against crime as well as against foreign espionage and national security in a world war and a cold war.

Another thing to consider is that it's not just a matter of replacing a Director, important as that is. The whole Bureau needs to be revamped. Among other things, during the Bush and especially during the Obama years, people who focused too carefully on domestic Islamist terrorism and sedition were reprimanded, eased out of promotion tracks or out of the Bureau itself. Training and manuals were changed to minimize the Bureau's concentration on this area, often with the assistance of Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR. And some agents were hired strictly for reasons of diversity. The entire culture and makeup of the FBI needs remaking. Anyone Trump chooses to lead the Bureau can expect some problems and even active resistance from some of the rank and file.  Some of it may be politically motivated while some of it maybe normal human dislike of change.  The new Director will have to be a real leader who inspires both respect and discipline.

Yucky Chucky Schumer is ranting about how the Dems won't vote for anyone Trump proposes for the position unless they get a special prosecutor.  If I were the president, I'd giggle and take that as carte blanche to appoint  whomever I wanted. And there's no way they can block Trump's choice anyway, despite the juvenile threats...thank you Harry Reid, for showing us the way!

And here's a fun fact. During his lame duck period, it was none other than Bill Clinton who changed the Special Prosecutor's office from being an independent entity to being part of the Department of Justice under the Attorney General. So the president can have another chuckle at Schumer and his playmates being stymied by the corrupt antics of one of their fellow Democrats.

Who to pick? Mike Rogers  seems like he might be a good pick.  He was a veteran FBI agent who  specialized in organized crime and public corruption. And a former Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman, who introduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act designed to facilitate cybersecurity, combat hacking and increase cooperation between government agencies and private companies towards that goal. He also has a fair amount of media savvy.

Whether his leadership abilities and personality are fitted to the job I can't say, but he certainly seems qualified in other respects.

 Bookworm Room : Sheriffs Joe Arpaio or David Clarke, both of whom are law enforcement agents with good values.

Laura Rambeau Lee : Ever since Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 the NSA was collecting massive quantities of metadata on unsuspecting citizens through their smart phones and computers, Americans have grown increasingly suspicious of our intelligence community. We had perhaps naively believed our government limited its intelligence collection to those suspected terrorists and bad actors who mean us harm. We knew about the secret FISA Court, but we believed the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protected us from unreasonable search and seizure. The random gathering of our personal information came as quite a shock. Many of us have become increasingly concerned with what these agencies are doing with all of this data collected.

There is no doubt James Comey had to go. He created uncertainty in the rule of law when he made his comments about Hillary Clinton, holding a press conference listing all of her illegal activities and then declaring he would not recommend she be prosecuted. He overstepped his duties and responsibility. It’s been almost comical hearing the Democrats express outrage over Comey’s firing when a few months ago they said they lost all confidence in his role as FBI director. Of course they would have relished a president Hillary Clinton fire James Comey. It’s been over six months and they still cannot believe or accept she lost. They blame Comey as a major reason for her loss. Their hypocrisy is laughable.

We cannot afford to lose any of our representatives in the House or Senate nor would they be able to be confirmed easily with such a polarized Senate. President Trump should choose someone removed from the political scene to become FBI director. We need a person with agency or law enforcement experience who has shown a commitment to and respect for the rule of law.

I would like to see someone like former New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly become director of the FBI, although he is seventy-five years old. Another name mentioned outside of the beltway is Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.

If President Trump looks within the agency to replace the director, those who could step into the role are Paul Abbate, currently serving as assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office; or Adam Lee, special agent in charge of the Richmond office of the FBI.

We entrust our intelligence agencies with the power and resources necessary to protect us. We understand they work in secrecy. Whomever President Trump chooses, the FBI director must be able to restore the confidence of the American people with the agency. They must restore the morale within the agency as well.



Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.