William Webster, the only man to head both the FBI and the CIA, has urged the US Senate to reject Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s nominees as directors of the bureau and national intelligence, arguing that they are unqualified.

Writing to senators, Webster, who is aged 100 and who was appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents, called on them to “weigh the critical importance of nonpartisan leadership and experience” and suggested that Patel and Gabbard possessed neither attribute.

“The safety of the American people – and your own families – depends on it,” he wrote, emphasising the importance of Senate confirmation hearings that will scrutinise the two nominees.

Wesbster, who was appointed as FBI director by Jimmy Carter in 1978, took aim at Patel’s suitability to head the bureau, implying that he exhibited an over-zealous loyalty to Trump that could undermine the rule of law and set a “dangerous precedent”.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, Trump is qualified. He meets the qualifications set out in the Constitution, and has enough electoral votes for this second term.

      He is unfit for the job, but will have it again anyway. The founders envisioned the Electoral College itself as the vehicle to prevent unfit people from assuming the office, but that isn’t working out so well.

      • nectar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        He has engaged in a coup (and has been convicted in the House and Colorado) and therefore is actually precisely unqualified per the Constitution

        There wasn’t anything against a coup member being on the ballot, which was what happened in Colorado, but regardless of number of (electoral) votes he should not be allowed to swear in

        We’ll see what ends up happening though

      • affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        is he qualified? there’s an argument to be made that he committed treason on january 6th and thus is ineligible for public office

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        The electoral college was designed to keep the wealthy minority in power, and it works well as intended. At the time that meant places with fewer people, since slaves weren’t counted, needed to compete with large cities with more diverse opinions. So the electoral votes don’t scale linearly by putting a low cap on them and a minimum. And additionally, it created a necessity for a two party system since if no one gets more than half of the votes, then the whole thing is meaningless since a single person then decides, which can be both controlled by the wealthy super-minority much more easily than having to control lots of parties. And you can confirm this even more by the fact that the electoral votes are not tied to the vote at all. The vote is just a suggestion. The state representative can vote however they want.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Has it ever worked out well?

        Reagan was a self serving actor who was elected president of the USA. Seriously, read that and think about what it inplies. That guy got nuclear codes too.

        The entire governing structure of the US never was a democracy, and it has always terrified me

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    … over-zealous loyalty to Trump that could undermine the rule of law and set a “dangerous precedent”.

    That’s what makes them qualified.

  • eldavi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    this is the only silver lining to a trump presidency.

    these 2 institutions are at the core of almost all of the violence and misery that humanity has had to needlessly endure over the last century+ and their neutering would be a benefit to the future.

    • Darkard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      And you think putting two fascist boot lickers in charge is going to somehow reduce human suffering?

      • eldavi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        no; they’ll help make it less sustainable.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ever think about who will be doing the neutering?

      Those institutions provide us benefits as well suffering and “neutering” those institution means cutting the good parts and keeping the shitty parts…it won’t lead to replacing them

      • eldavi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        i’m okay with fascists fighting each other to detriment of their goals.

        what “benefits” or “good parts” are there?

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Public services? Currency? Distribution and organization systems? The US government does a lot for its citizens. Not enough, if you ask me, but nobody in Trump’s administration is going to “neuter” tax loopholes or health insurance companies. They’re going to neuter the services because they don’t benefit the rich.

          • eldavi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Public services? Currency? Distribution and organization systems?

            please provide sources of the cia & fbi offering these services.