Poll: Should Dems Agree to make Garland the FBI Director, Even if it Creates a Judicial Vacancy?

Should Dems Agree to make Garland the FBI Director, Even if it Creates a Judicial Vacancy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 18 100.0%
  • Total voters
    18
7

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,620
Daps
17,471
McConnell: I recommended Merrick Garland for FBI director

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has encouraged President Donald Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to lead the FBI, the Kentucky Republican said Tuesday.

“I have spoken with the president about it. I recommended Merrick Garland,” McConnell told Bloomberg Politics’ Kevin Cirilli.

“Yeah, it may surprise people, but he has a deep background in criminal law,” he continued. “He was the prosecutor in the Oklahoma City bombing case. And I think it would make it clear that President Trump will continue the tradition at the FBI of having an apolitical professional.”

Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey last week amid a looming investigation into potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The administration suggested the ousting came at the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but Trump later told NBC News that he would have fired Comey regardless of the recommendation.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Thursday first floated the idea of Garland leading the FBI. Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was nominated by former President Barack Obama to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court last year but was blocked by Senate Republicans, who maintained that the next president should fill the vacancy, as Trump eventually did.

“Instead of a special prosecutor, @realDonaldTrump should nominate Merrick Garland to replace James Comey,” Lee tweeted Thursday.

While Republicans have framed Garland as a figure who could get bipartisan support in the Senate, nominating Garland would give the president an opening to appoint someone to the D.C. Circuit, the most powerful court aside from the Supreme Court. There are currently seven Democratic and four Republican appointees on the court.

McConnell didn’t address the court vacancy that would open up but insisted “it would be good to have Democratic support” on a new FBI director nominee.

“And I think if he picks someone with a deep background in law enforcement who has no history of political involvement, a genuine expert — and the reason I mention Garland, he’s an example of that — it will serve him well, serve the country well and lead to, I think, a more bipartisan approach,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Cobratron

Cobratron

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
27,528
Reputation
2,740
Daps
68,382
This is a trap and the Dems are stupid, so... it's probably gonna happen.
 
7

714562

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,767
Reputation
1,620
Daps
17,471
Is it really a trap though? Garland has every reason to dislike the current administration and it would look terrible if Trump fired two FBI directors in two years. Granted, the GOP can manufacture some inane reason to eventually fire Garland. But he's not exactly a dummy either. I'm not sure who holds the best hand in this situation. Either the GOP thinks it has no reason to be afraid of Garland and this is a scheme to pick up a judicial seat, or McConnell thinks he can buy some goodwill from Senate dems to push through an obviously stalled legislative agenda.

As of right now, there's a real possibility that Trump will end his first year in office with zero legislative victories. So I mean, it's not crazy to think that this is an olive branch to buy support for the Senate's eventual healthcare bill or a hypothetical infrastructure bill.
 
Worthless Loser

Worthless Loser

Blackpilled
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
16,053
Reputation
5,049
Daps
108,917
Garland is a moderate so it would be a good choice, but Trump isn't hiring anyone with Obama's name attached to them.
 
Professor Emeritus

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,753
Reputation
18,818
Daps
194,231
Reppin
the ether
Czarface said:
Is it really a trap though? Garland has every reason to dislike the current administration and it would look terrible if Trump fired two FBI directors in two years. Granted, the GOP can manufacture some inane reason to eventually fire Garland. But he's not exactly a dummy either. I'm not sure who holds the best hand in this situation. Either the GOP thinks it has no reason to be afraid of Garland and this is a scheme to pick up a judicial seat, or McConnell thinks he can buy some goodwill from Senate dems to push through an obviously stalled legislative agenda.

As of right now, there's a real possibility that Trump will end his first year in office with zero legislative victories. So I mean, it's not crazy to think that this is an olive branch to buy support for the Senate's eventual healthcare bill or a hypothetical infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...

Garland has a lifetime appointment. He going to give that shyt up just to hand good publicity to Trump?

McConnell is doing this because he knows that Garland will be fair AND that because he has Obama's name attached to him, Trump can still accuse him of bias. Plus it opens up a critical seat.

This is Republicans playing chess at the rec center. No way enough people fall for it to make it happen.
 
Dr. Acula

Dr. Acula

ACCEPT JESUS
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
25,065
Reputation
8,355
Daps
132,373
Czarface said:
Is it really a trap though? Garland has every reason to dislike the current administration and it would look terrible if Trump fired two FBI directors in two years. Granted, the GOP can manufacture some inane reason to eventually fire Garland. But he's not exactly a dummy either. I'm not sure who holds the best hand in this situation. Either the GOP thinks it has no reason to be afraid of Garland and this is a scheme to pick up a judicial seat, or McConnell thinks he can buy some goodwill from Senate dems to push through an obviously stalled legislative agenda.

As of right now, there's a real possibility that Trump will end his first year in office with zero legislative victories. So I mean, it's not crazy to think that this is an olive branch to buy support for the Senate's eventual healthcare bill or a hypothetical infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...
I don't know man. This administration and congress has made me extremely cynical. This is a guy who bragged about how much of an expert chess move it was to hold the SC seat hostage and laughed about how Donald should be thanking him.

I said it in the stickied thread that there was a time I think you could maybe apply some "washington logic" to what they do, but I think we're past that point. Senate has a simple majority for republicans and if they feel their legislative agenda is under threat, they'll just pull the nuclear option if they're desperate enough for legislative items like they did with the SC.

We're in a new era of toxic political parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top