Talk:Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Merge List of Directors of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation by time in office
There is a very similar list at List of Directors of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation by time in office that would be an excellent addition to this rather small article. In addition it would help stem a proliferation of Lists organized by X.... style lists and be easier for the reader (as this is the logical starting point for this information). Shadowjams (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. With the sorting function, it should be easy enough to have all of the data in one table. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Two list articles are one to many. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. No need for this article. Both are very short, combining them should make them more informative. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

term of director
According to the article the term of the FBI director is a renewable 10 year term. Then why is the current renomination of Mueller, which is currently (July 26) placed on the U.S. Senate's executive calender, for a term expiring September 4, 2013? In other words, a two year term? -- fdewaele, 27 July 2011, 8:30 CET.

Count of directors?
Per FBI: position of the director the FBI describes the two positions (chief & director), but their listing includes all directors, acting or not. Shouldn't the count start with one, the one at the beginning? – S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC) J Edgar was appointed to the Bureau in 1924. Until then it was stated that the Texas Rangers were the only law west of the Pecos. Hoover turned the Bureau into the FBI which was founded in 1935 incorporating several Law Agencies and many of the attributes died with him. With many scandals and on line and current, and with redundant agencies and several operating mainframes collaborating the same data; ie; Department of Justice, all of the agencies in HLS; and State Police, MI-6, and CIA; It could be argued that FBI has outlived its usefulness while groups within the FBI continue to break the law. The Hanssen case, and killing programs are examples; While HLS gets the same funding to perform FBI functions. Earl.

Dismissals
This article (or the Table) should reflect somehow that two Directors were fired: Sessions by Clinton in 1993; and Comey by Trump in 2017. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added it under the Notes column. Earthscent (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You should note that they may be more of a political dismissal than an actual firing. Political party One POTUS puts the Director into place. Political Party Two POTUS dismisses them and appoints a new Director. If that is the case you may want to add Louis Freeh to the list since in a way he was dismissed solely so Bush could replace him with Mueller. This may continue for some time until both parties wise up and realize that most of the bad that is coming out of this organization starts in the Psych (I have a degree in Psychology) staff rather than from the Director. They (the Psych staff of the FBI) are not liked by any creditible Clinical Psychology professor that I know. Doctor Jack White (known as Doctor Jack) when asked about the FBI just made a move with his hand of pushing it all away from him. In words, it is a hopeless situation. The FBI Psych staff cannot be evil to Jack White, PhD because he is dead now which makes it safe for him when I write this. hhhobbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

First sentence in lead
I'd like to propose a small rephrase to the first sentence in this article's lead section. Honestly, the wording "The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the head of that agency (FBI) [...]" sounds rather odd to me, and I'd like to know if anyone shares this opinion and would be alright with changing it to- "The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the head of the U.S. Federal Beareau of Investigation (FBI) [...]".

--Jak525 (talk) 02:19, Thursday, May 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. No, the current wording does not sound at all odd to me.  In fact, it was written that way exactly to avoid duplicating the clunky and wordy phrase "Federal Bureau of Investigation" (all eleven syllables!).  To me, your revised proposal sounds much worse.  You are repeating the eleven-syllable clunky and unwieldy phrase twice  in a span of three or four words.  That situation is, I believe, exactly what the current phrasing was trying to avoid.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point with the double eleven-syllable word. Maybe it's just me then, but to me "that agency" sounds a little improper (though still of course correct technically). What about something along the lines of- "[...] is the head of the FBI, the United States' primary domestic law enforcement agency, [...]"? --Jak525 (talk) 07:43, Thursday, May 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, duplication of the eleven-syllable phrase probably was the original "problem". I think the first sentence sounds fine.  It is not jarring to me, at all.  Your revised proposal also sounds fine to me.  You can add in that phrase about "is the head of the FBI, the United States' primary domestic law enforcement agency".  I think that's fine.  However, the Wikipedia link to FBI also takes care of the information you are proposing, although more indirectly than your approach.  Also, in some fashion, you have to account for that other clause: "he is the person who runs the day-to-day operations", etc.  So, that might be added in as a separate stand-alone sentence.  Or as part of the sentence you are proposing.  Whatever sounds best.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. And yeah, I just integrated that in with the sentence. --Jak525 (talk) 21:53, Thursday, May 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Implication that the President requires the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to recommend removal of FBI Director
The article contains the following text, which implies that the President requires the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to recommend removal of the FBI Director in order to remove the FBI Director: "A Director can be removed from office by the President on the recommendation of the Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General.[6]"

The citation attached to this statement does not assert this fact. Further, I am unaware of any such requirement - I believe the statement in question conflates the sequence of events that occurred in the removal of former FBI Director James Comey with the required process for removal of an FBI Director. As such, I recommend updating the text to read: "An FBI Director can be removed from office by the President with adequate cause or by Congress through impeachment." Relevant citation: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/06/how_do_you_dump_the_fbi_director.html

-- Idcandy (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You stated: "An FBI Director can be removed from office by the President with adequate cause or by Congress through impeachment.". I don't believe that that is true.  I thought that a President can remove a Director for "any reason" or even for "no reason at all".  Isn't that exactly what the phrase "serves at the pleasure of the President" means?  And isn't that exactly what Comey himself just indicated a day or so ago?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You made the proposal: "An FBI Director can be removed from office by the President with adequate cause or by Congress through impeachment.".   This is technically true.  Of course, the President "CAN" do that.  But, it implies that the President must have adequate cause.  It implies that having "good cause" is necessary to fire the Director.  That is not true.  The President can fire the Director for any reason, or for no reason at all.  In other words, the President does not even have to have a reason, nor does he have to offer a reason.  Much less, a "good reason" or an "adequate cause reason".  But ... can the President fire a Director for adequate cause?  Of course he can.  So, again, this all  boils down to the fact that the Director serves "at the pleasure of the President".  The Constitution states so.  And even Comey himself conceded so, a day or two ago (or maybe that was just today?).   That "Slate" article source that you offered is only superficially and technically true; it misrepresents the situation.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Trump may of removed Comey with the advice of the Attorney- and Deputy Attorney-General, but as he serves at the pleasure of the President I'm rather sure he can remove him on his own. --Jak525 (talk) 21:42, Thursday, May 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that Trump himself thinks he does not need to justify a dismissal. In a recent interview (I haven't the details with me) Trump said he decided to sack Comey a week before the Deputy AG's recommendation and would have done so even without that recommendation. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that Trump himself thinks he does not need to justify a dismissal. Correct.  And even Comey himself agrees with that assessment.  Source: .  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comey reportedly wrote the he had "long believed that a president can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all."  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Donald Trump stated on an NBC interview with Lester Holt that he had made the decision to dismiss Comey and THEN sought support from the attorney general and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.130.68 (talk)

Article on Comey's replacement started.. come help out
Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray

Chain of command
The article says: "Since the 1920s, the FBI has been supervised by the Department of Justice and the FBI Director has answered to the Attorney General." That statement is not supported by a citation, which probably seemed insignificant until yesterday, when President Trump disputed that version of the chain of command. I'm travelling on business (and I lack the expertise to properly address the issue anyway), but I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to provide a citation to support that passage -- and if not, I'm wondering if the article should be revised to point out that there's an opposing view. HMishkoff (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Director Wray:

You have the OPINION that Mr. Muller's long investigation isn't a witch hunt. Many others believe it is when it comes to the President. When choosing a jury - or investigative team - great effort should be made to see that it is not BIASED. Mr. Muller hired all DEMOCRATS, and many of them had made financial contributions to Hillary Clinton and even attended her parties. Is that FAIR and does it show good judgment. I think not, and our people don't think so. Mr. Rubenstein hangs on the materials that Congress has repeatedly demanded - like it belongs to him or is above the law. You fellows need to do your jobs, and corporate with Congress. Your histories will long be remembered after you are out of office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CE:4101:BEF2:DC02:86DF:91A2:C93A (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

days
It is suggested in WP:Age_calculation_templates that age templates not be used for fixed dates, such as all but the last in the table. It seems that it makes pages load slower unnecessarily. Should these be changed? Gah4 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

John Edgar Hoover was Director during Nixon's presidency
John Edgar Hoover was Director until 1972 and Richard Nixon was the President among 1969 and 1972. Therefore J. Edgar Hoover was Director of the FBI during some years of the Nixon's presidency. But un the list of Directors is not it. Thanks Sirslayercort (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears there some problem with formatting this. I tried to rectify the table but all my attempts resulted in Hoover's immediate successor being pushed not further down but to the right. I'll try again but this is probably someone with more formatting knowledge should have a look into. Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like this. Str1977 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I reached out on Help talk:Table and got a workaround. Jpers36 (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

red, blue & gray boxes on the list of directors
at Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_directors_(1935–present) what do the red, blue & gray boxes indicate? whatever they indicate, let's put a legend at the top of that section. skakEL 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Disappointing it has not been address in 2 years. 96.230.78.111 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * what do they mean?? 2A01:4B00:BB07:300:A087:334:F3D4:18B7 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Here we are three years later - still no explanation of the colors? If there isn't IMHO they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.245.229 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover - BOI (presidents served under)
It says that J. Edgar Hoover became Director of BOI in 1924 and served under Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. However, Herbert Hoover did not become POTUS until 1929. Calvin Coolidge was POTUS in 1924. I'm not all that good at modifying tables. If need be I will, but don't want to mess things up. Could someone add President Coolidge to the table? 47.137.184.131 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

p.c.h Daniella and Daniel l Watson
city bank don't know nothing about money for me 69.1.38.253 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Same here. A Mr.Patterson called me with this scam. 2603:9001:53F0:650:A492:98AD:8712:6236 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fraudulent Impersonation
Hello, My name is Dorothy This morning I received an email from someone stating that they are the director of The FBI(Sir.Christphter Wray).The email stated that the government has determined that I'm entitled to be compensated for a scam that my name appears on the list of victims.And that I'm entitled to a huge amount of ($USD).I have no intention of providing or confirmation of any of my personal information. I know that one of these people are pretending to a captain of The United States Army. I think they have hacked this person personal information. I took screenshots of everything they sent to me. I will be happy to send you everything I have if you request it. I'm not going to share my phone or anything personal in this message. I'm hoping this message will reach the right destination or department. I'm looking forward to hearing from someone concerning this message. Best Regards! Dorothy! 2603:9001:53F0:650:A492:98AD:8712:6236 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)