The head of the FBI, or any other Federal intelligence agency, should NEVER be an appointed position. Only qualified candidates should be hired to run these agencies. Politics needs to be reigned in so the trashing of the country can’t occur.
249 years and this has never been fixed. What a bloody joke.
The president chose who he wanted & it was rubber stamp approved.
Having an individual work their way up in the Agency to finally be promoted to the head is different, and they don’t change every 4 years.
Whiskey Pete was a fox newz reader, un-qualified for this job.
No that wasn’t my question. I understand the difference between a qualified and unqualified candidate. What am I asking is what’s the difference between hiring and appointing? Who’s doing the promoting? And how is that any different than being appointed?
Congress has to approve the appointed cabinet. The FBI promotes employees. The FBI has no choice in the person running their entire organization, they were never an employee there.
Yes. Well aware. But the question I asked? You said the head of the FBI should never be appointed and we should only hire qualified individuals. Then I asked what’s the difference between an appointment and a hiring, also who does the hiring? Remember?
The head of the FBI, or any other Federal intelligence agency, should NEVER be an appointed position. Only qualified candidates should be hired to run these agencies. Politics needs to be reigned in so the trashing of the country can’t occur. 249 years and this has never been fixed. What a bloody joke.
I get you, but I can also see it being both?
THEORY an appointed position but part of the confirmation is actually verifying their credentials
Isn’t that was the senate approval is supposed to be?
What’s the difference between appointing somebody and hiring somebody? Isn’t it virtually the same thing?
The president chose who he wanted & it was rubber stamp approved. Having an individual work their way up in the Agency to finally be promoted to the head is different, and they don’t change every 4 years. Whiskey Pete was a fox newz reader, un-qualified for this job.
No that wasn’t my question. I understand the difference between a qualified and unqualified candidate. What am I asking is what’s the difference between hiring and appointing? Who’s doing the promoting? And how is that any different than being appointed?
Congress has to approve the appointed cabinet. The FBI promotes employees. The FBI has no choice in the person running their entire organization, they were never an employee there.
Yes. Well aware. But the question I asked? You said the head of the FBI should never be appointed and we should only hire qualified individuals. Then I asked what’s the difference between an appointment and a hiring, also who does the hiring? Remember?