Posted on 12/17/2020 5:20:52 AM PST by Red Badger
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has come so close to firing FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months that the White House counsel’s office has warned him not to do so because it could put him in potential legal jeopardy, according to a senior administration official with direct knowledge of the discussion and a U.S. official familiar with the discussion.
White House lawyers “strongly” advised Trump against firing another FBI director out of concern that doing so would risk creating the perception that a “loyalty test” was being imposed on a position that traditionally has maintained independence from the White House, according to the senior administration official.
The lawyers, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, specifically said that firing Wray could spark legal issues similar to those raised after Trump ousted James Comey as FBI director in 2017 in the midst of the Russia investigation, the officials said.
Their concern was that firing Wray could be seen as retaliation because the president has publicly pressured him to take specific actions on certain investigations — such as announcing a probe into President-elect Joe Biden’s son — and then expressed frustration that Wray has not followed his suggestions.
CIA Director Gina Haspel was so convinced she might be fired that she was seen cleaning personal items out of her office at CIA headquarters last month after Trump ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper, according to three former and current administration officials familiar with the matter.
Haspel’s job has been rumored to be in doubt in the weeks after the election, in part because of her reluctance to release classified documents related to Russian interference in the 2016 election, even when other intelligence community leaders like John Ratcliffe have pushed to release the information. But her position may now be more secure than it was even a few weeks ago, officials said, given that several Senate Republicans conveyed their support for her to the White House.
Still, officials said Trump could decide to fire Haspel anyway. “That hasn’t been put to rest.”
Doesn’t Wray serve at the pleasure of the president?
Fire him.
“Loyalty test’? How about a competency test. Oh wait....They don’t exist in the corrupt political class do they?
Those people worried about losing their jobs could avoid being fired by actually doing their job.
CIA Director Gina Haspel was so convinced she might be fired that she was seen cleaning personal items out of her office at CIA headquarters last month after Trump ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper, according to three former and current administration officials familiar with the matter.
—
“...three former and current administration officials familiar with the matter.”
Calling BS on story with this sort of “source”.
Get the hell out of here, Trump should have fired that deep state traitor the next day after that CNN Roger Stone arrest show. It proved Wray was not interested in justice but in scoring political points with the Treason party.
So what is the rest of the threat? That the Deep State will impeach our President a 2nd time for exercising Constitutional executive authority?
Fire him so hard he’ll wake up at an FBI training facility in TUVA.
At least we won;t have to put up with false investigations into innocent Republicans.
The ba$tard is letting Swallwel of the hook. He’s letting Hunter Biden off the hook.
Perhaps, like in corporate america, you need to build a documented case before you can fire him. The documented case for Wray would be- 1. found out from CNN of all places that Wray did this instead of following EO #1234. 2. Found out from MSNBC of all places, that Wray did not inform the Executive of issue X, instead of following Law 123 as he was required to.
If they built a case like this, citing the things that have been done unlawfully in a clear manner, firing him becomes a non issue. You can then stand in front of the Senators and Congressmen and read the list of why it was done, with item after item. In Wray’s case, this list would be quite long.
Maybe none of this matters. Employment law outside of government is mostly understandable. Inside the government its like a good ole boys club.
The Director of the FBI has, I think, a ten year term associated with it. He doesn't serve 'at the pleasure of the president' because that implies a President can fire him for any reason or no reason at all. But the President can fire him for cause and that's a pretty broad term.
OK, how about arresting him, then?
What’s the point in being President if you can’t fire people?
Trump should have fired these losers, but the question I ask myself is why didn’t he?
Insubordination to the Commander in Chief is sedition.
If you can’t fire an insubordinate who is working against you, you have the same situation as SF Portland Seattle where trespassing, violence, arson, and other “property crimes” are not prosecuted
The “loyalty test” problem that is only an issue if a Republican is president.
Maybe he is not firing them for a legal reason! If they are still employed by the government they could be prosecuted for certain crimes then if they were not employed. Maybe some attorney on this thread could comment. (Just thinking outloud)
Bullshit. The president can fire an FBI Director at will, no reason needed. That’s beyond question.
All bets are off mr president the clock is ticking, this purge should have been done long ago, your enemies were in full view all the time including puke Mitch McConnell, drop the docs, pardon assange and snowden, appoint a federal prosecutor to go after the biden crime family, institute the insurrection act, use the miltary to bring this all under control. Our republic demands it
And since when is a director of a minor bureau in an executive branch department “independent” of the White House?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.