May 10, 2017

"Did the president dump Comey for mishandling the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email, as Trump and his team have said?"

"Or was Comey’s handling of the investigation simply a pretense to fire an independent-minded director who was investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russians?"

That's how FiveThirtyEight frames the question.

Or would you say questions? I think it's one question if you see it as an either/or, which is what you will do if you think there are only 2 options. The second alternative is framed so strongly — "simply a pretense" — that it seems set up for rejection. I expect the answer to be it probably wasn't simply a pretense.

Now, let's read the article, which is by Perry Bacon Jr., who sees plenty of evidence that Comey indeed mishandled the Clinton email investigation. But if that were the real reason, why didn't the firing occur months ago? Trump had the basis for firing Comey, but he didn't pull the trigger. He just kept it in reserve, so doesn't that mean that he knew he could justify firing Comey and he waited until something else, something about him, not Clinton, made him want to be rid of the man?

The best answer to that is: Comey made a big mistake last week testifying before Congress (when he that Huma Abedin forwarded 1,000s of Hillary emails to Anthony Weiner). Bacon's response to that is hard to find. He switches to talking about how Democrats are criticizing Trump for firing Comey. But, of course, Democrats reflexively criticize Trump. They're calling him "Nixonian." A Republican Senator said he was "troubled" and another said there were "questions."

Bacon speculates that "the American people" might not believe Trump, but that's why I'm reading this article, Mr. Bacon. I thought you were going to answer the question why Trump did what he did, but now it seems you're only talking about whether people will believe Trump's assertion.

318 comments:

1 – 200 of 318   Newer›   Newest»
Expat(ish) said...

I've had to let a lot of people "go" in my 30+ years in corporate 'Merica. Often the reason you can use to justify the event isn't the reason you actually fire them.

But everyone knows that.

As does Trump, thus the framing of the "pink slip."

I'm not sure this changes any minds, or makes the Anti-Trump camp look less deranged.

-XC

exhelodrvr1 said...

There was never a "good" time for Pres. Trump to fire Comey. The situation was so screwed up, that even though he richly deserved it, no matter when it happened there was more room than normal for the conspiracy theorists on the left to start screaming. Between Lynch's bias, the Hillary email issue, the IRS, etc., Comey should have resigned in protest at least a year ago, or else actually done his job properly and waited for Obama to fire him. But he decided to "play the game."

J2 said...

Word of the day- pretense or pretext?

80% of the talking points media are going with "pretext".

Virtually Unknown said...

but now it seems you're only talking about whether people will believe Trump's assertion

Well, that's the only thing that is important to the Democrats, who are his believing audience.

Bob Ellison said...

A boss once told me, "You can fire someone for a good reason or for no reason, but not for a bad reason."

Varying laws and other things complicate that, but in general, it's good, old advice. Trump or Sessions might have said to someone, "It's time to fire Comey. Give me the reason we can state publicly."

rhhardin said...

Rule of law and sealed lips might be a nice way to run the FBI.

That ended in the 90s when the Clintons somehow got the FBI files on their enemies.

David Begley said...

Trump waited until the deputy AG was in place and for him to reiview the Comey files. That was the prudent and businesslike thing to do.

Very disappointed in Ben Sasse.

CNN and MSNBC are both hysterically incoherent on this matter.

Bob Ellison said...

Also, the publicly stated reason says roughly, you're a pretty good guy, Comey, but you're clearly not up to the job. That's pretty benign, and seems pretty true.

AReasonableMan said...

Politics"R'Us

Trump to meet Russian Foreign Minister one day after firing James Comey amid FBI investigation into 'collusion with Russia'

Clyde said...

Okay, there weren't "hundreds and thousands" of classified emails forwarded from Huma Abedin to Anthony Weiner, there were two, according to the FBI, says the article.

That's two serious felonies. And while Comey seriously exaggerated the extent of the real issue, it's still there: Passing classified information via unsecured channels to someone who wasn't supposed to receive it, and who was extremely vulnerable to blackmail. If you or I did it, we would go to jail. Hillary and her minions probably won't.

Why was Comey fired? Because as President Trump noted, he was no longer able to effectively lead the FBI. Nobody trusted him any more. Nobody believed him. He had to go.

AReasonableMan said...

Atlhouse said...
"The best answer to that is: Comey made a big mistake last week testifying before Congress "


Seriously, this is the 'best answer'.

AReasonableMan said...

In the 'best answer' one has to believe that Trump was seriously, and I mean really seriously, troubled by Comey making a close associate of Hilary Clinton's look worse than she actually was. This from a man who brought Clinton's husband's bimbos to a presidential debate. Who claimed that Ted Cruz's father killed the Kennedys and who routinely calls Huma's husband a pervert.

Suddenly, Trump is concerned about Huma's reputation. This is the 'best answer'.

David Ragsdale said...

More interesting to me than the Dem/Media/Celeb reaction, is the novel approach Trump is taking. In a shift from Bush-era policy, incompetent office holders will no longer have tenure just because they attend the same mass as some writers from National Review. #progress

iowan2 said...

You always take Trumps words literally unless that messes with the narrative, then you seek out hidden meanings.

John said...

This was headlined at Drudge just now. I had not heard about the last one and find it particularly worrying. Did the FBI want people killed in Garland TX? Terror attacks are a good excuse to ask for more funding, more laws and more power. But that might just be the cynic in me speaking.

Here are 10 of Comey's biggest embarrassments at the FBI:

1. Before he bombed the Boston Marathon, the FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev but let him go. Russia sent the Obama Administration a second warning, but the FBI opted against investigating him again.

2. Shortly after the NSA scandal exploded in 2013, the FBI was exposed conducting its own data mining on innocent Americans; the agency, Bloomberg reported, retains that material for decades (even if no wrongdoing is found).

3. The FBI had possession of emails sent by Nidal Hasan saying he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers to protect the Taliban -- but didn't intervene, leading many critics to argue the tragedy that resulted in the death of 31 Americans at Fort Hood could have been prevented.

4. During the Obama Administration, the FBI claimed that two private jets were being used primarily for counterterrorism, when in fact they were mostly being used for Eric Holder and Robert Mueller's business and personal travel.

5. When the FBI demanded Apple create a "backdoor" that would allow law enforcement agencies to unlock the cell phones of various suspects, the company refused, sparking a battle between the feds and America's biggest tech company. What makes this incident indicative of Comey's questionable management of the agency is that a) The FBI jumped the gun, as they were indeed ultimately able to crack the San Bernardino terrorist's phone, and b) Almost every other major national security figure sided with Apple (from former CIA Director General Petraeus to former CIA Director James Woolsey to former director of the NSA, General Michael Hayden), warning that such a "crack" would inevitably wind up in the wrong hands.

6. In 2015, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on a Texas political meeting, finger printing, photographing, and seizing phones from attendees (some in the group believe in restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic).

7. During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops.

8. The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI, however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview.

9. The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and closed its case.

10. CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did not intervene during the attack.


https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch

John Henry

John said...

Probably not about Huma's reputation, ARM. President Trump was probably worried about the reputation of his FBI. He's prez, it is his FBI and he gets any blam attached to it.

Comey went before Congress and testified under oath that there were "hundreds and thousands of classified emails" on Carlos D's computer. Turned out that was not true.

So,

1) Did Comey know it was not true and lied about it?

2) Was he so uninformed that he thought it was true?

One is dishonesty, the other is incompetence. Either is sufficient grounds for firing.

John Henry

AReasonableMan said...

Twitter said...
"is it possible to play zero dimensional chess?"

John said...

I've noticed that there is another John posting.

To avoid confusion, my posts are pretty much always signed John Henry.

John Henry

Richard Fagin said...

Expat(ish)'s explanation for Director Comey's firing applies as well to political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President. Just ask Archie Cox or Elliot Richardson, or for that matter all 93 United States Attorneys that President Clinton fired. "Rule of law and sealed lips" didn't end in the '90s; it was only the "sealed lips" part. If Director Comey had any shortcoming, it was his failure to find and store "dirt" on his political enemies, both actual and potential. J. Edgar Hoover is spinning in his grave calling Comey a piker.

The Drill SGT said...

Clyde said...
Nobody trusted him any more. Nobody believed him. He had to go.


Thread winner.

alternately, because Trump has finally lined up a good replacement. Which is why he didn't fire him earlier.

iowan2 said...

The facts. FBI Director answers directly to the Dept, Attorney General Rosenstein. Because Democrats have slowed the administrations ability to staff the govt, Rosenstein was sworn in April. 25th. That allows the Dept. AG, 2 weeks to conduct an investigation, for his largest personnel responsibility, the Director of the FBI. A person that has lost the confidence of Democrats, Republicans, and the Executive Branch. Read the Asst. AG letter of recommendation, To President Trump, and point to even a comma out of place. Call Dept AG Rosenstein a liar, I relish the opportunity to mock those so detached from simple facts.

Virtually Unknown said...

Truman's firing of MacArthur comes to mind.

Paul from Decatur, GA said...

My question is, after his letter just before the election, why didn't Obama fire him?

Jack Wayne said...

David Begley, Sasse has gone around with bend with his Trump hatred. Pathetic.

PackerBronco said...

The Left: Fire Comey! Fire Comey!
The Left: OMG!!!! You fired Comey!!

Lyle Smith said...

Ben Sasse, in his statement about the firing, actually praised Comey. I think he's hoping to bring down Trump if it means siding with Democrats. Yep, disappointing.

Hagar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

Perhaps Comey assured Trump once too many that he was not under investigation?

tcrosse said...

My question is, after his letter just before the election, why didn't Obama fire him?

Maybe he would let the inevitable President Clinton do it.

Rene Saunce said...

Is bacon a millennial? cupping a nice hot cup of cocoa?

Inga said...

"He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.

Trump had grown angry with the Russia investigation — particularly Comey admitting in front of the Senate that the FBI was investigating his campaign — and that the FBI director wouldn't support his claims that President Barack Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower.

By Tuesday evening, the president was watching the coverage of his decision and frustrated no one was on TV defending him, a White House official said. He wanted surrogates out there beating the drum.

Instead, advisers were attacking each other for not realizing the gravity of the situation as events blew up. "How are you not defending your position for three solid hours on TV?" the White House aide said."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192

David said...

Come had lost the confidence of just about everybody. He should have resigned. But he would not so Trump, perhaps unwisely, fired him.

So now we are in crazy time and the stuff that needs to be done won't get done.

Bob Boyd said...

Re the timing, Clapper and Yates testified to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigating collusion with Russia the day before yesterday. They essentially said there's no evidence of collusion at all as far as they know. That's not the end of the matter, but it created some space for the Administration to fire Comey.

If Comey had stayed on and 6 months or a year from now he announced that his investigation clears Trump, the people shouting Watergate now would be shouting Watergate then.

dreams said...

It doesn't matter, he deserves to be fired and it's a good thing. Trey Gowdy for FBI Director, that will scare a bunch of crooked Democrats and that would be a good thing too. It would be good for our country.

Franklin said...

1) If Hillary had kept her mouth shut Comey might not've been fired. Now Sessions may hire Trey Gowdy to go after her.

2) This is a good drain the swamp move - you know how swampy someone is by how the media reacts. Judging by this (over)reaction, Comey's a big time gator in the swamp. If you are pissing off the right people you know you're doing the right thing.

Inga said...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/trumps-leaky-ship-sails-on/

It sounds very much like Politico got people in the White House to say, flat out, that the firing was about quashing the Russia investigation. The most parsimonious assumption is that, in fact, the President fired his FBI director in an attempt to quash that investigation, and disloyal aides are trying to (a) protect themselves in the event of a Congressional investigation by preemptively saying that they had no idea this was coming, and (b) put Congress on the spot by making it abundantly clear that such an investigation is warranted. Is Congress really not going to do anything in response?

I suppose they might not. The Republican strategy so far seems to be to count on their voters either never believing their lying eyes, or on complete epistemic closure to prevent their voters from ever learning unpleasant news, or on being so convinced of the absolute evil of Team Blue that there is literally nothing that would make them change their mind about the lesser evil.

Rene Saunce said...

A narrative was mushrooming.

Yes is was . a narrative.

Clayton Hennesey said...

How outlandish that the President of the United States decides to fire someone at a time that seems right to him rather than at a time that seems right to me!

Will this razing of the Republic never cease?

Matthew Sablan said...

People have been calling for Comey to be fired since, what, October? September?

Rene Saunce said...

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s political action committee donated nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe--the wife of an FBI official who helped oversee the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, the Wall Street Journal first reported.

McCabe. Money. Stench.

I hear McAuliffe wants to run for prez. The Clinton corruption machine lives.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"Suddenly, Trump is concerned about Huma's reputation."

-- Or, since Comey has now lied to Congress, Congress can't trust him.

Crazy Jane said...

As usual, Trump doesn't get any style points. The only employees he values are loyal employees, and Comey isn't loyal to anyone; who knows what to make of the guy?

This could have been handled better. Trump could have called Comey in and said, "Look, you're the flash point for both parties, a distraction. Why don't you retire and take a nice cushy job the way Petraeus did? The investigations now under way will continue to their conclusions. You and I can work together to find a more low-key successor."

But no. "You're fired!"

Comey is now a victim where, in real life, he seems like the kind of who can take care of himself just fine.

Inga said...

What changed his mind?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/332641-flashback-trump-praised-comey-in-october

"President Trump praised FBI Director James Comey's "guts" for renewing an investigation into Hillary Clinton, seven months before firing him for mishandling the situation.

In the Oct. 31 remarks, Trump, who had previously criticized Comey for not bringing charges against Clinton, said he had to give the FBI credit.

"That was so bad what happened originally, and it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution," Trump said at a Michigan campaign rally.

He also told Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo in April that while he believed Comey was "very, very good to Hillary Clinton" and kept her from facing charges, he wants to "give everybody a good, fair chance."

Trump's perspective apparently changed recently, prompting his firing of Comey on Tuesday afternoon. In a letter to Comey, Trump said he agrees with his Department of Justice’s assessment that Comey is "not able to effectively lead the Bureau.""

Inga said...

No connection to Comey firing? Also interesting, Comey will still be testifying tomorrow.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-targeted-by-grand-jury-subpoenas-sources-confirm/

"Federal prosecutors probing Russian interference in last year's presidential election have issued grand jury subpoenas for business records of associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, CBS News has confirmed.

Sources tell CBS News investigators have been using all tools at their disposal. The probe has been going forward aggressively and showing no signs of slowing down, and subpoenas are part of an investigation, the CBS News sources point out."

Matthew Sablan said...

"My question is, after his letter just before the election, why didn't Obama fire him?"

-- Because he was more useful as a boogeyman than a scapegoat.

Rene Saunce said...

Mind reading ...from media hacks... Special.

Brando said...

Not a well-handled move, if the goal was to get credit for removing a distrusted FBI head or deflect from the Russia investigation. Trump would have been better off building up to this by publicly asking the Dems (who long criticized Comey for his October announcement which they blame for Clinton's loss) if they'd like him to replace Comey--either yes, and he goes forth or no, and they stop complaining about Comey (and of course if Comey later exonerates Trump, there's not much they can say about that--they were ok with keeping him on). Or, build up through strategic leaks that Trump wanted to keep Comey but was convinced (by e.g., Rosenstein) that Comey had no confidence from Trump critics so even if Comey exonerates Trump in the Russia investigation it would not mollify them.

At any rate, Comey's criticisms from the Dems (and the effect that may have on Trump's investigation, in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" way) at least passes the laugh test. WHat doesn't pass the test is Trump's official reason--that he didn't like how Comey made the October announcement--at the time, he praised Comey for it, as did Sessions. Waiting until after Comey announces that FBI is investigating Trump's team over Russia just looks fishy.

Now the important thing for Trump is who he picks to head the FBI--surely he wants a loyalist, but if that loyalist is heading the Russia investigation then any exoneration of Trump will look tainted.

Unknown said...

Lying President Trump doesn't really care what people think. The more pretensive (is that even a word?), the better. All the better to show that what anyone else thinks does not matter. Papal letters are often called bull because they were sealed with a big leaden seal. The seal was the trademark. Lying is Trump's trademark. Of course he lies about the whys and wherefores. All the better for others to chatter endlessly about him. It covers nothing. The truth is in plain sight. The FBI is getting to close. Fire Comey and claim its about Clinton. Not brilliant, but typically ballsy. There must be a version of Stockholm syndrome in which people who have been lied to often enough, actually learn to like the lies and admire the liar. I see it around.

Brando said...

"My question is, after his letter just before the election, why didn't Obama fire him?"

Because that would look political, and Obama figured Hillary would win anyway.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It sounds very much like Politico got people in the White House to say, flat out, that the firing was about quashing the Russia investigation."

-- That should be your first clue that something is wrong with that report. Why would the White House sources, who like Trump mind you, deliberately undermine their own message?

Remember: Several Politico writers are known hacks who get approval from Democrats before publishing. What Republican sources do you think they still actually have once that fact was known?

buwaya said...

To be fair to Comey, the distinction in his testimony vs the facts apparently being clarified by the FBI don't amount to much.

Most of the emails in her husbands computer seem to have been automated backups from her Blackberry, which would have been a Clinton email recipient - i.e., official State Department business, whether classified or not, via cc's and etc. Ask anyone in corporate America whether its OK, on your own authority, to forward your company email archive to an offsite private data store.

There's your thousands, and her system was deliberately set up that way.

dreams said...

The corrupt Democrats and the corrupt bubble baby liberal media are so clueless and while they continue to impress each other with their hysterics, their flyover presumed inferiors are watching and I think are reassured once again that Trump has not only the smarts but also the backbone to stand-up and do the right thing however politically incorrect.

FYI, I'm still not tired of winning.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, Comey's mistake is a huge boon to Abedin. Now the headline in people's mind is: "Trump's FBI lied about Abedin's email scandal," not "Abedin had a few classified emails illegally forwarded to Weiner's laptop."

It was, quite possibly, the best result for Abedin out of all this.

Rene Saunce said...

Note how the media spin and lie about the subpoenas regarding Flynn.

Trump is not under investigation, but you would not know it based on their hack narrative writing and reporting.

And Flynn, of course, is guilty guilty guilty! off with his head.

Angel-Dyne said...

Apparently the hive-mind is having opinion-supply-chain problems, and some lefties didn't get their delivery of the correct opinion yesterday.

Rene Saunce said...

"The Russia investigation" is a big nothing. Trump knows it is a big nothing and so he fired Comey because Comey has lost everyone's confidence. Even Hillary!

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"that's why I'm reading this article, Mr. Bacon. I thought you were going to answer the question why Trump did what he did, but now it seems you're only talking about whether people will believe Trump's assertion."

Ha ha ha.

Athouse is awesome.

BTW, Mr. Bacon, if ya had answered this question re stating that DJT is lying, Althouse would be asking how you could justify the "lie" word, cause ya can't read his mind.

Cool.

Mike Sylwester said...

In this context, I prefer the word pretext over pretense.

For me, the latter word evokes the word pretentious.

dreams said...

A little history, J.Edgar Hoover got too powerful to be fired and so I think it's also good that Trump fired Comey before he got too big to fire.

Trey Gowdy, I hope.

Rene Saunce said...

Angel-Dyne.

I happened to hear a segment of Hannity on the radio yesterday and he played endless clips of Stephen Colbert lavishing praise over Obama next to clips of Colbert trashing, in the most nasty vile way possible, Trump.

Yes, we know Colbert is a partisan corruptocrat-supporting a-hole, but the clips really made it clear.
Colbert worships president boyfriend.

Does Colbert get paid by Clinton, Inc?

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Very disappointed in Ben Sasse.


Sasse is a relatively young man with potentially a long future in politics. Trump is a dumpster fire. Of course people in Sasse's position are beginning to distance themselves. The thing over the next week will be how many and how far. My guess is Trump survives but severely weakened.

damikesc said...

6 months later and there is no actual evidence of anything. When will the "media" stop hyping a lame conspiracy theory?

dreams said...

"It was, quite possibly, the best result for Abedin out of all this."

I bet she's hoping Trump names Trey Gowdy to be FBI Director. LOL!

traditionalguy said...

Come was fired for using the intel he stored up as political blackmail material.

That is the J. Edgar Tradition. That is why Comey bragged he would not be fired like J. Edgar was not fired. Which was why a 10 year term limit was created, which is not a 10 year term, but an auto firing date to prevent another J. Edgar.

So DJT made America Great Again by shifting the FBI Agency back into an investigative Agency and not a political Player with secret powers. The Attorney General is now the political player.

Rene Saunce said...

Trump is weakened by hack lair pro-D hack press and Stephen a-hole Colbert(D).


Yep.

dreams said...

"Sasse is a relatively young man with potentially a long future in politics"

A future footnote in history.

Original Mike said...

"Did the president dump Comey for mishandling the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email, as Trump and his team have said?"

Well, he did mishandle the Clinton investigation.

I consider him a hero for his July news conference. If he had done what he was supposed to do, hand his findings over to Lynch privately, she would have sat on them and the voting public would not have known what he discovered. However, he then should have resigned for what he had done.

An even bigger "sin" however, was the unprofessional way in which he carried out the investigation. Hillary Clinton was given wide, improper deference no one else would have received. IMO, that make his firing appropriate.

traditionalguy said...

The Media was in a panic last night. But they rallied this AM to demand a Special Prosecutor who will leak rumors for the next 7 years and always ABOUT to get the goods on Trump with enough time.

Poor Rosenstein. He better not have any Russians in his contacts.

William said...

Trump was justified in firing Comey. However, there was no foreshadowing, and the dismissal was executed clumsily. I'm supportive of Trump but his handling of Comey's dismissal is more doubt inducing than confidence building.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

When the facts don't fit fall back on the time honored methods and try to "baffle 'em with bullshit".

AReasonableMan said...

Jim Geraghty said..
How could anyone at the White House possibly not grasp that firing an FBI Director will be a supremely controversial decision? The only other time a president asked an FBI Director to step down was in William Sessions in 1993, and that was after a report by Attorney General William P. Barr that found…

Sessions falsely claimed a tax exemption on the home-to-work use of his official limousine, billed the Government for personal trips on Federal Bureau of Investigation aircraft, built a security fence for his home at Government expense and did not cooperate with investigators looking into accusations that he received special treatment from a bank on his mortgage loan for his house in Washington.

It’s much easier to justify a firing when you’ve got a list of ethics problems!

dreams said...

"Trump was justified in firing Comey. However, there was no foreshadowing, and the dismissal was executed clumsily. I'm supportive of Trump but his handling of Comey's dismissal is more doubt inducing than confidence building."

Bullshit, enjoy your ride on the liberal spin train while Trump continues his shock and awe.

Rene Saunce said...

oh noez - controversy!

We must leave these for-lifers in place. It makes the establishment nervous when boat is rocked.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

All I know is that if there was collusion with Russia, there was certainly no intent to break the law and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

Bay Area Guy said...

@OM,

"I consider him a hero for his July news conference. If he had done what he was supposed to do, hand his findings over to Lynch privately, she would have sat on them and the voting public would not have known what he discovered. However, he then should have resigned for what he had done."

This is pretty much where I am too. Lynch's DOJ was actively trying to avoid prosecuting Hillary for political reasons. Comey saw the Lynch-Bill Clinton tarmac move for exactly what it was. So, he exacted a fair price - no, we won't recommend prosecuting Hillary during a heat d campaign, but, Yes, she was extremely careless with her private server and 30,000 destroyed E-mails.

He made his point.

damikesc said...

So, we know Comey is a big leaker

grackle said...

Trump is not under investigation, but you would not know it based on their hack narrative writing and reporting.

Although Trump is not officially under investigation, I think most of us know that Trump is the target. The newswhores are simply reflecting the reality of the situation. They want Trump’s scalp so bad they can taste it.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm really enjoying the pivot the Media's making, from "Comey's a bum who cost Hillary the election--he should be fired and investigated!" to "how dare Trump fire Comey, it must be part of a coverup!"

The headlines are only a few weeks apart. NPR this morning was hilarious--at least twice they basically said the only reason for Trump to fire Comey would be to interrupt Comey's investigation into Trump. They never actually said there is such an investigation into Trump, of course, and for some reason they didn't frame any of the anti-Trump stuff as "allegations," so...pretty funny.

Inga said...

Speaking of "hive mind", lots of buzzing hereabouts. Pretty loud in an echo chamber too.

AReasonableMan said...

I am not saying this is true, because I am a firm believer in Hanlon's razor, but Rod Rosenstein's letter can be read as a very clever play, lulling the Trump White House into the frankly delusional belief that they could get away with firing a troublesome FBI director with a very low cost to themselves.

Someone is playing multidimensional chess, somewhere.

dreams said...

Lets not forget that Comey was slow walking the investigation of the unmasking and leaking of Trump's people and to whom it may concern, Comey is no hero.

Inga said...

You people believe Trump isn't under investigation? La La Land. Trump saying so in his letter to Comey does not make it true. Trump is a known pathological liar and manipulator.

AReasonableMan said...

Robert Deitz, a former top lawyer for the CIA and the National Security Agency who served under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said ...

"In any normal administration, firing the director of the FBI during an investigation of the administration would be viewed as suicidal. This of course is not a normal administration. But no matter what, this will create a firestorm that will disturb even Trump loyalists on the Hill."

David Baker said...

All I know is that the Dems are suffering, awful, intense suffering. In obvious pain, Senator Schumer has just turned the well of the senate into the Wailing Walling. Senator Feinstein may need another hysterectomy. CNN is fearing staff suicides. Nancy Pelosi is so despondent she's unable to speak coherently, again.

Therefore, one must ask: Is there no god?

I Callahan said...

You people believe Trump isn't under investigation? La La Land. Trump saying so in his letter to Comey does not make it true. Trump is a known pathological liar and manipulator.

"Under Investigation" <> "Evidence Exists for an Investigation"

Math 101.

Michael K said...

"Very disappointed in Ben Sasse."

I wonder what his motivation is? Maybe he is just a Trump hater who thinks this will help him in some future career.

In early 2016, while both parties' presidential primary election seasons were in progress, Sasse announced that he would not support Republican front-runner Donald Trump should Trump become the party's candidate; he was the first sitting senator to make such an announcement.[35] Sasse questioned Trump's commitment to the U.S. Constitution, in particular accusing him of attacking the First Amendment; he stated that Trump had refused to condemn the Ku Klux Klan; and he suggested that Trump "thinks he's running for King".[36] He stated that if Trump won the party's nomination, then he would vote neither for him nor for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, but would probably "look for some third candidate—a conservative option, a Constitutionalist".[36] According to a Sasse spokesman, he did not say that he would necessarily leave the party if Trump was nominated.[37]

He seems to have committed early to Trump hatred. "Refused to condemn the Ku Klux Klan "is pretty far fetched and sounds like a DNC talking point.

Maybe he is counting on a Trump failure but most people who were moderately negative about him seems to be pretty happy so far,.

The left, of course, is still going nuts 24/7.

Inga said...

Trump doesn't listen to advice, he's the boss.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447477/comey-over

"If President Trump was really bothered by how FBI Director James Comey handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails – and recall he praised the director’s decisions on the campaign trail last autumn – then the normal, sensible thing would have been to let Comey know there was an intention to make a change during the transition.

Even if you’re a diehard fan of Trump, you have to concede he’s being poorly served by his staff, if they’re allowing presidential decisions to be enacted this quickly and haphazardly. (According to the New York Times, chief of staff Reince Priebus disagreed with the decision and managed to briefly delay it.) How could anyone at the White House possibly not grasp that firing an FBI Director will be a supremely controversial decision? The only other time a president asked an FBI Director to step down was in William Sessions in 1993, and that was after a report by Attorney General William P. Barr that found…"

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447477/comey-over

Mike said...

I believe the reasons in Trump's letter. Why not?

David Baker said...

And what about the children.

I Callahan said...

If President Trump was really bothered by how FBI Director James Comey handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails – and recall he praised the director’s decisions on the campaign trail last autumn – then the normal, sensible thing would have been to let Comey know there was an intention to make a change during the transition.

Or, they may have been waiting to get all of their ducks in a row before firing someone.

Sometimes the obvious explanations make the most sense.

Inga said...

https://www.justsecurity.org/40802/reports-trumps-firing-comey-involved-obstruction-justice-russia-investigation/

"If President Donald Trump orchestrated the decision to fire the Director of the FBI to subvert or undermine the integrity of investigations into the Trump campaign’s possible coordination with Russia, it may amount to an obstruction of justice. If Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others knowingly participated in such a plan, they too would be in legal and political jeopardy. Although the Republican-controlled Congress may never bring impeachment proceedings against the president or others, we may still reach a state of affairs amounting to a constitutional crisis if such a plan took place, it comes to light, and the public believes it. Unfortunately for our republic, we may also reach such a state if only the third occurs (the public believes it). But what’s the actual evidence so far?

There are several indicators that may suggest that the real rationale for the president’s decision to fire Comey was not due to the president’s stated reasons, but instead due to the negative political exposure if not legal liability created by the ongoing FBI investigations. Here, I simply want to highlight what some news reports are saying about what actually took place in the president’s decision making, sourced in part to anonymous officials. Key so far are important lines in an article in Politico and two pieces in the New York Times.:"

dreams said...

I agree with an earlier comment that the crooked Dems are in pain. An aside, I predict Mika and Joe of Morning Joe will have some good sex the next few days.

AReasonableMan said...

I Callahan said...
Or, they may have been waiting to get all of their ducks in a row before firing someone.

Sometimes the obvious explanations make the most sense.


Since duck #1 would be lining up a replacement who could attract broad bipartisan support I think we have to go with the second statement:
Sometimes the obvious explanations make the most sense.

Original Mike said...

"If President Trump was really bothered by how FBI Director James Comey handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails – ...– then the normal, sensible thing would have been to let Comey know there was an intention to make a change during the transition."

One thing I put no credence in is the "I question the timing" complaint. Yesterday we were discussing the "Why did you wait 18 days" wailing over Michael Flynn. Today it's "Why didn't you fire him the first week?". There are a lot of things on the Administration's plate. There is no need, nor is it desirable, to do everything all at once.

Rene Saunce said...

Trump to Dems: Why so sad over cost-us-the-election Comey?

Because, outrage.

Bay Area Guy said...

"An aside, I predict Mika and Joe of Morning Joe will have some good sex the next few days."

Is there anything Trump can't do?!

Rene Saunce said...

We can only hope that the new FBI director will re-open Lois Lerner, prosecute or at minimum fire Koskinien, and re-open Hillary-Private-Server-Clinton-Foundation-Gate.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Rene Saunce, it is entertaining to watch them hyperventilating over this.

Mac McConnell said...

The Democrats need to put up or shut up, they are becoming INFOWAR conspiracy theorists.

Sam L. said...

538 likely forgot the Dems' earlier displeasure with Comey leading up to the election.

Static Ping said...

I've reached the point where I have been lied to by the media so often that I consider them roughly on the same level as a crazy person wearing his underwear on the outside of his clothes screaming at a butterfly, except I like the crazy person better. As for the Democratic Party, I can pretty much write their talking points to any event because they have become so reactionary, dogmatic, and predictable. Please let me know when someone not in those two categories has something interesting to say on the record.

Rene Saunce said...

"Jonah Goldberg may have captured this weird moment in American politics best. In response to Donald Trump’s jibe at Democrats raging over the firing of James Comey, Goldberg tweeted, “If hypocrisy were helium, Washington would be in low earth orbit this morning.” "

heh.

mccullough said...

Comey was too high profile. More Hoover than Mueller. The FBI head should be a low-key person

Angel-Dyne said...

ARM -

Btw, I'm enjoying your current performance art, which interrogates the basis of commenter identity by appropriating in drag (or is it trans?) mode the style and content of commenter Inga, thereby exposing the elusiveness of poster ipseity and subverting cishetmale privilege norms chez Althouse.

Nice job.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Even if you’re a diehard fan of Trump, you have to concede he’s being poorly served by his staff, if they’re allowing presidential decisions to be enacted this quickly and haphazardly."

-- Remember about 20 hours ago when we were told Trump was too slow at coming to decisions, and now he's too fast?

You might think that some people will criticize him no matter what he does?

Bay Area Guy said...

At the time, I really didn't understand Watergate. The hearings were monumentally slow and boring. The once popular Vietnam war was winding down. The Left hated LBJ, and now hated Nixon. But until the tapes were released, I thought he'd survive.

Here, the Dems are hilariously transparent. They hate Trump and want him out. Ballot box? Didn't work. Impeachment? Not enough Dems in the House. Special Prosecutor? Well, AG Sessions won't appoint one. Congressional hearings? Will Sally Yates be our savior? Probably not.

The Get Trump crowd reminds me of Maxwell Smart in Get Smart. They are clueless and pathetic.

Rene Saunce said...

from my link above. Finally, does this amount to obstruction of justice in the Russia probe? That seems pretty doubtful, as it will continue under whomever follows Comey into that slot. It will also take months to replace him, and in the meantime the probe will be run by acting Director Andrew McCabe — the same person whom Republicans complained had political connections to Hillary Clinton during the e-mail probe. This doesn’t look like anything connected to the Russia probes, but more like a long-planned firing executed with terrible timing.

McCabe needs to go next.

Drago said...

Inga: "It sounds very much like Politico got people in the White House to say, flat out, that the firing was about quashing the Russia investigation"

Lol

Easily the funniest and most moronic claim yet.

Is it possible to play Negative Dimensional Chess? Clearly yes.

Well done Inga. A new "high" in Low!

Rene Saunce said...

Are democrats bitter desperate liars or are they Infowars birther-ish conspiracy loons?

Rand Paul: Dems Pushing a 'Huge Myth' About Trump Collusion With Russia


AReasonableMan said...

ngel-Dyne said...
thereby exposing the elusiveness of poster ipseity and subverting cishetmale privilege norms chez Althouse.


I heard that the Dean had decided to cut the Althouse Studies program in next year's budget. Very unfortunate, because your work seems to be progressing in a very interesting direction.

BJM said...

The Left flip-flops from #FIRECOMEY to Constitutional crisis and they think Trump has a credibility problem?



Inga said...

Drago, the quote isn't mine, it's from a right wing publication. Read more carefully. They're apparently much smarter than you.

"It sounds very much like Politico got people in the White House to say, flat out, that the firing was about quashing the Russia investigation"

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/trumps-leaky-ship-sails-on/

It sounds very much like Politico got people in the White House to say, flat out, that the firing was about quashing the Russia investigation. The most parsimonious assumption is that, in fact, the President fired his FBI director in an attempt to quash that investigation, and disloyal aides are trying to (a) protect themselves in the event of a Congressional investigation by preemptively saying that they had no idea this was coming, and (b) put Congress on the spot by making it abundantly clear that such an investigation is warranted. Is Congress really not going to do anything in response?

I suppose they might not. The Republican strategy so far seems to be to count on their voters either never believing their lying eyes, or on complete epistemic closure to prevent their voters from ever learning unpleasant news, or on being so convinced of the absolute evil of Team Blue that there is literally nothing that would make them change their mind about the lesser evil.

Birches said...

Probably not about Huma's reputation, ARM. President Trump was probably worried about the reputation of his FBI. He's prez, it is his FBI and he gets any blam attached to it.

I know someone in the FBI. They are having trouble filling their recruiting classes, have had to cancel whole sections. The reasons given for the firing might be the truth. If the FBI can't recruit good people anymore, that would be a bigger problem than optics.

Rene Saunce said...

Hard to find anyone worth a hill of beans in Obama's Cocoa-cupping whiny taker-land.

Matthew Sablan said...

The quote predicates us believing Politico still has highly placed Republican sources, despite Republicans knowing that Politico vets stories with Democrats for approval prior to publishing, and is known to lie about Republicans/post hit pieces pitched by Democrats about Republicans.

If you believe this, then yes. I suppose you can believe Politico's statements.

FIDO said...

The Democrats don't trust Comey because he dared say a few nasty things about Hillary before the election and they wanted him destroyed as a result. So they don't trust him.

After his latest testimony, the Republicans find out, in their opinion, that Comey knew a LOT MORE dirt than he actually revealed, which would have destroyed Hillary had he had the stones to report it. So Republicans don't trust him.

The 'Law and Order; Above Partisan Differences' types in the FBI think that Hillary should have been treated like any other perp and she wasn't...so THEY are disgusted.

The NSA can't believe how bungled the investigation was and considering how their 'stones' would be on the chopping block if they did half of what Hillary did, THEY don't trust him.

The man is the loneliest man on the planet except for Anthony Weiner.

Original Mike said...

[Rand] Paul said he has not even heard an "accusation" on what crime Democrats believe may have been committed.

Come to think of it, I don't know what law(s) Trump is supposed to have broken either. Inga's our All Thing Russia gal; I'm sure she'll be happy to educate us.

Inga said...

The American Conservative obviously believed Politico.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Come to think of it, I don't know what law(s) Trump is supposed to have broken either."

-- All of them.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The American Conservative obviously believed Politico."

-- One writer there did. I have no reason to believe Politico; they have very little good will left.

Matthew Sablan said...

Still, where was all this "FASCISM IS COMING!" when Obama was firing IGs investigating his administration?

Bruce Hayden said...

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s political action committee donated nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe--the wife of an FBI official who helped oversee the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, the Wall Street Journal first reported.

McCabe. Money. Stench."

The missing piece there, that you alluded too, is that Mcauliffe is a Clintonista from way back. He was a big fund raiser for Bill Clinton, and was their hand picked DNC chair. So, giving esp the Clinton Foundation investigation to someone whose wife got a half million dollars in campaign contributions from someone that close to the Clintons stank to high heaven. Comey, of course, went along with it.

When this originally came out, it appeared that (the FBI) McCade owed his job and his loyalty to Chuck Schumer. And, of course, the Clintons. Which was what was expected under Obama, and the expected Crooked Hillary Administration, but not so good under Trump.

Inga said...

OM,

I wouldn't even try to unravel the knot in Rand Paul's mind. It's not only his hair that's tangled.

Original Mike said...

Forget Paul. What law do you think Trump has broken.

Bruce Hayden said...

A number of thoughts that I am reposting from the end of the previous thread last night.

1. Sure, the firing looked inept. Trump people should have known where Comey was and done this with him first. But the reality is that this is how Trump fires people. Outside D.C., there aren't a lot of people feeling sorry for Comey. And the rubes out in Trump country know that this is how it is done from innumerable episodes of The Apprentice. This is the guy who may have been able to trademark "you're fired". Think Roman circuses where the audience is voting thumbs up, or thumbs down.

2. I expect that the supposed lying before Congress and screwing up with the investigations of Crooked Hillary last summer are the justification for the firing, but not the real reason for it. It was cleverly done by essentially coopting the Dems case.

3. I suspect that part of the delay was getting someone loyal to Trump established kin the DoJ who could do the dirty work, which meant getting the Deputy AG confirmed first, with AG Sessions already partially recused. Besides, neither Trump nor Sessions wanted their fingerprints on the knife itself. Everyone knows that this was Trump's move, but he has somewhat plausible deniability. He can say that he merely went along with the well reasoned decision of his underlings. That is what good bosses do.

4. Most Republicans in Congress are likely privately on board with the firings. Comey has been on the GOP base's shit list since he sold out with the Crooked Hillary non-investigations. Instead of backing AG Lynch in the email scandal, we all expected him to fall in his sword, recommend prosecution, then resign after Obama/Lynch overruled him. Instead we got the spectacle of him laying out a good case for her prosecution, then stating that they couldn't because he mischaracterized the required mens rea (he showed gross negligence, which is the legal requirement, but begged off because he couldn't find actual intent, despite having plenty of evidence, through her many years of dealing with classified information to prove at least general, and probably specific, intent). And most recently, the FBI has been stonewalling Congressional investigations into the leaks and FISA targeting. A new head at the CIA has shown how a loyal subordinate in charge can get things moving, with the CIA being much more forthcoming than the FBI.

5. I suspect that the real reason though for the firing is that Trump essentially told Comey to prioritize the leak investigations over the bogus Russian hacking and influence investigation. The FBI didn't. Sure, the Dems want the FBI mired down running in circles, wasting resources trying to prove that Trump and Flynn conspired with the Russians to steal the election. But that is what they do, and all they have. There was actual leaking of classified information, most likely by Dem operatives and sympathizers, aimed at damaging Trump and his legitimacy. And Comey and the FBI work for Trump now, not Head Clown Schumer and the Dems. If the FBI wanted to investigate the Russian stuff in their spare time, then fine, but their orders were to look at the leaks and targeting as their day job. Comey and the FBI were insubordinate, and, thus he needed to go, in order to bring the agency into line. They needed to know that when the President said jump, their response is "how high?" and not that Schumer, WaPo, Bezos, NYT, and Carlos Slim said that they didn't have to.

Kevin said...

The second alternative is framed so strongly — "simply a pretense" — that it seems set up for rejection.

Or easy acceptance by those who are predisposed to do so. You need to understand the point of these articles are not to debate, but to present that any debate is ridiculous because the "facts" preclude it.

Inga said...

"Blumenthal then to called on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to “redeem himself and appoint a special prosecutor”:

What’s needed is an independent, objective, impartial prosecutor. Because only a prosecutor can bring criminal charges and hold accountable the people who may have committed treason, or fraud, or lied to the FBI.

And obviously the president is a potential target indeed. I think one of the very revealing parts of Jim Comey’s testimony at the Judiciary Committee, was when he refused to rule out the president as a potential target."

exiledonmainstreet said...

The Get Trump crowd reminds me of Maxwell Smart in Get Smart. They are clueless and pathetic.

5/10/17, 9:44 AM

I'm reminded of Wile E. Coyote, sure that with this new ACME rocket launcher, he'll get the Road Runner this time!

Inga said...

"Author Jon Meacham was the first to drop the T-bomb, putting it plainly: “the President of the United States has removed someone, at will, who is in charge of an investigation that could lead to treason.”"

Matthew Sablan said...

"What’s needed is an independent, objective, impartial prosecutor."

-- Why? Everyone who has seen the evidence, including Comey (three times, mind you!) has insisted there is no evidence. There is nothing there. Feinstein? Nothing. Clapper? Nothing. Every other Democrat who has been privy to the information? Nothing.

There is no reason to appoint a Special Prosecutor when for a year, an investigation has failed to find anything, and was started with a fake dossier created by political enemies with factually incorrect information in it and based on a wiretap that, as more evidence was reviewed, appears to have been flimsy at best.

If there was some proof of wrong doing, it would be worth it. All appointing a special prosecutor will do, at this point, is create a witch hunt.

Let the FBI finish their investigation; the new investigator is a Clinton partisan, so if there is anything to find, it will be found.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Author Jon Meacham was the first to drop the T-bomb, putting it plainly: “the President of the United States has removed someone, at will, who is in charge of an investigation that could lead to treason

-- What did Jon Meacham say about Obama's firing of multiple IG's and refusing to fill positions of other IG's?

Original Mike said...

Did Trump pay the Russian's to phish Podesta? Maybe he promised them 20% of the US uranium supply.

Mark O said...

There is no Trump/Russia crime.

Fox reports, and I believe this, that Trump fired him, in part, because Comey refused to report the names of those who had been unmasked and by whom.

That's insubordination.

Kevin said...

Gee, the press was plenty concerned about Comey's lying under oath yesterday. Today, not so much:

Jonathan.

Q Sean, a follow-up on that one. But first I wanted to ask you about FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate, which now, apparently it looks like the FBI Director gave inaccurate testimony to the Senate. Is the White House concerned that he greatly exaggerated or misstated what kind of contact Huma Abedin had in terms of her emails and sending them to Anthony Weiner?

MR. SPICER: I have not asked the President or the staff about that. But I mean, I think there’s -- the one issue is I don’t think there’s any question by any account that there was classified information inappropriately shared on an unclassified system to an unclear person. I mean, that’s, to me, I think, what continues to be the takeaway.

Q But is the White House concerned that the FBI Director apparently gave inaccurate testimony?

MR. SPICER: At this point, I have not asked and I’m not fully aware of this. I mean, I’m aware of the testimony that occurred and the inquiries, but I have yet to follow up on that, and I’d be glad to follow up.

Q Does the President still have confidence -- full confidence -- in FBI Director James Comey?

MR. SPICER: I have no reason to believe -- I haven’t asked him. So I don’t -- I have not asked the President since the last time we spoke about this.

Q And the last time you spoke about it, you said he did have confidence, but you’re not sure to say that again now?

MR. SPICER: Well, I don’t -- in light of what you’re telling me, I don’t want to start speaking on behalf of the President without speaking to him first.

Michael K said...

"What’s needed is an independent, objective, impartial prosecutor."

Earth to Inga. The "Special Prosecutor" law was allowed to expire years ago after Bill Clinton got his nuts in the nutcracker.

There is no such thing and there won't be. This is all entertainment for the boobs who voted for Hillary and think the Russians stole the election.

Trump is moving along with his agenda and gaining support among GOP voters who were reluctant. Every time he gores another leftist ox the screaming conceals the satisfaction in most of the country.

When the EPA headquarters is moved to Detroit, I might be satisfied.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Inga: "The American Conservative obviously believed Politico."

The American Conservative joins Milwaukee Talk Radio personality Charlie Sykes as the brand new "Holders of Correct Opinion and Analysis" according to Inga.

Double-plus interesting: Politico is now the employer of choice for all Jedi Knight as well!

It's already been a banner day!

Oops! Did I write "banner"?

Egads! That's awfully close to "Bannon", isn't it? WE NEED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE "banner/Bannon-GATE"!!!!

Matthew Sablan said...

If what Trump did was espionage, then Obama promising more flexibility was also clearly treason.

If Trump firing Comey, who everyone wanted fired before he was fired, is a sign of coming despotism, what was Obama's firing of IGs who everyone thought should not have been fired for investigating Obama?

damikesc said...

Treason? By following a foreign policy Russia hates while defeating an opponent whose manager owned a lot of stock in Russia's gas company that would've made money if we further limited fracking? Do you not see how insane that is?

Bruce Hayden said...

The entire point of the Russian "investigation", calls for an independent prosecutor, etc, is to mire Trump and his Administration down, and to delegitimize it. And to keep the loyal troops riled up. Red meat for the Ingas of the world. As I said late last night - it ain't gonna happen, without a real smoking gun being found. Trump knows that this is almost entirely a PR war, aimed at delegitimizating his Administration. Why would he allow an independent prosecutor be named and empowered? (After the Independent Counsel statute expired, any independent prosecutors appointed are appointed, and nominally controlled, by the AG). Whose sole purview would be to just bedevil him? What is in it for him? Right now, nothing. It would just keep a fake scandal alive that he thinks is a (deliberate) distraction by his enemies.

dreams said...

A Republican president will never again appoint a special prosecutor and neither will a Dem.

Bruce Hayden said...

Earth to Inga (cont): Crooked Hillary lost. Trump won. Only people who get to decide whether or not a special prosecutor gets appointed any more are the sitting President and his AG. No one else. That means Trump and Sessions. No one else. If the President doesn't want one appointed, there isn't one appointed. End of story.

Kevin said...

Treason? If the still-secret Iran treaty and $2B in secret slush fund payments in cash to the Mullahs isn't treason, I don't see how Trump is going to do anything impeachable in that regard.

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Kissinger was at the White House!

Special Prosecutor Now!

Drago said...

Navy Bean Soup served for lunch at the White House!

Special Prosecutor Now!

Drago said...

David Cassidy NOT in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame!

Special Prosecutor Now!

Drago said...

Inga's magic mind-rays allowing her to see all details of active investigations BLOCKED by the NSA!

Special Prosecutor Now!

Drago said...

Sweet and Sour sauce NOT a Top 5 condiment!

Special Prosecutor Now!

Rene Saunce said...

Scott Walker to be indicted for... ? any second now!

Rene Saunce said...

Bruce Springsteen admits to dodging taxes on mega-wealth...

No special prosecutor, because loyal rich democrat!

dreams said...

Trump keeps winning and the crooked Dems, lacking ammo use what they have, excrement. They still have gas and excrement to paraphrase from another thread.

Rene Saunce said...

Khesan - LOL!

Rusty said...

The usual suspects continue to beclown themselves over this.
Maybe Trump or congress will replace him with someone who is interested in, you know, the rule of law. It's kinda what our constitution is all about.

dreams said...

Apparently some of us are feeling Inga's pain, enjoy. Sorry Inga.

hstad said...

The entire premise of this article and what it postulates makes is conspiracy central on display. Just the day before, former head of national intelligence James Clapper stated that there are no Russian ties. If you don't believe him, then former assistant deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who the Democrats adore now, also stated no Russian ties. Conspiracy theories are numerous and promulgated largely by the chattering class and media. For the MSM, envy of losing their exalted position, previously accorded to them by other Presidents, and now removed by President Trump is the primary catalysts for all of this silliness. Hey today even the king of idiots, Congresswoman Maxine Waters has stated that their are no Russian ties. LOL!

Drago said...

Hstad: "For the MSM, envy of losing their exalted position, previously accorded to them by other Presidents, and now removed by President Trump is the primary catalysts for all of this silliness."

The Dems know what is coming vis a vis domestic spying by Obama, not to mention ALL the other actual Dem cover-ups.

That is why the Dems/"lifelong republicans" and their media allies are in full apocalypse mode.

Just wait till we get the real and full background details on the fake Russian "dossier" and we understand how it was used to corrupt te FISA process.

Matt said...

Of course this is about the Russian investigation. Comey recently said he wanted to expand the investigation. The idea that Trump would let Comey go because of the way he handeled the Clinton email case is laughable at best. But it's not a conspiracy to think so. Trump may very well have had no connections with Russia. But you can bet he was tired of the distraction. Firing Comey is proof.

Annie C said...

Matt said...
Of course this is about the Russian investigation. Comey recently said he wanted to expand the investigation. The idea that Trump would let Comey go because of the way he handeled the Clinton email case is laughable at best. But it's not a conspiracy to think so. Trump may very well have had no connections with Russia. But you can bet he was tired of the distraction. Firing Comey is proof.

I must have missed something, can you cite where Comey recently said he wanted to expand the investigation?

Rene Saunce said...

Comey's Out. Who's Next for Rosenstein?

Quote within:

"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the [Clinton email] case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his views on the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation [bold mine], without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

"Rosenstein goes on to quote numerous statements from attorneys general and deputy attorneys general of both parties concurring with his view, but this is a memorandum all should read in its entirety for themselves. Besides being an impressive brief for the firing of James Comey, it also appears to open the door for something else, for that "well-established process for other officials to step in" to lead to something yet more dramatic -- the renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton."

Bruce Hayden said...

@Matt - while I agree that it is partly about the Russia investigation, I think that it is also about the FBI not moving fast enough to figure out who the leakers were. In other words, Comey was setting priorities to make both sides happy, and trump, being his boss, thought that the FBI's priorities should be the ones he (and his DoJ) set, and not the ones set by Schumer, Bezos, and Carlis Slim. And, to respond to questions about the unmasking of the identities of Trump people in FISA surveillance. The CIA has responded to the President and to Congress, why hasn't the FBI? The FBI, being the originators of much of this intel, should be able to tell Trump precisely whose identities were unmasked, when, by whose request and authority, and, then, who accessed that information. This isn't happening, and there are suspicions that the agency is stonewalling to protect itself and its reputation. In short, the agency is recalcitrant and insubordinate. The Director was given a chance to clean things up. Turn things around. He didn't, which means that he is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. And that means starting at the top in Trump's world.

Inga said...

Yes, you missed something.

"I must have missed something, can you cite where Comey recently said he wanted to expand the investigation?"

http://freebeacon.com/politics/comey-requested-money-doj-denies/

"Days before he was fired, former FBI Director James Comey asked the Department of Justice for additional funding and personnel to expand its inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the New York Times reports.

The Department of Justice has denied the report.

Three officials informed the Times that Comey made the request last week during a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Rosenstein authored a letter which condemned Comey's management of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. The letter was used as justification by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his recommendation to President Trump to fire Comey, which he did Tuesday.

According to the Times‘ sources, Comey subsequently briefed members of Congress on the request.

Following the release of the Times‘ report, the Department of Justice denied the claim that Comey asked for more funds."

Qwinn said...

I propose we simply ignore our resident lefties until they answer the question: why didn't Obama firing IGs bother them? It's been pointed out dozens of times and as far as I can tell they have simply pretended it never happened. Why are we letting them get away with that? Until they answer that, their credibility that they are arguing in good faith is at absolute zero.

Inga said...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/05/10/comey-asked-for-more-funding-for-russia-probe-last-week-report.html

"Comey asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last week for a significant bump in both money and personnel, the Times reported. U.S. lawmakers were reportedly briefed on the request."

Comanche Voter said...

James Comey is exhibit one as an example of the type of political general or admiral detested by the rank and file in the military officer corps. The type is known as "Perfumed Princes on The Potomac". Or you might call them Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon.

Comey has some ability; you don't get where he got by being a dunce.

But Comey's prime goal in life is the task of keeping his skirts clean. That goal has been abundantly on display in the past year or so. The head of any organization has to be able to command the loyalty and respect of the "troops" in order to be an effective leader. Comey and his shenanigans protecting James Comey's reputation cost him the respect of the agents in the FBI. As a simple matter of good management, Comey had to go. He could no longer lead the FBI.


Original Mike said...

"The FBI, being the originators of much of this intel, should be able to tell Trump precisely whose identities were unmasked, when, by whose request and authority, and, then, who accessed that information. This isn't happening, and there are suspicions that the agency is stonewalling to protect itself and its reputation."

Last week, either Graham or Grassley asked Comey if there would be a record of who asked to have a name unmasked and Comey's response was "probably". Really??? You don't know? Bullshit.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ha! I just saw a clip from Colbert's show last night. Colbert announced that Comey had been fired and his liberal audience cheered and applauded. Colbert had to explain to his confused fans that no, this was a very BAD thing!

Original Mike said...

@exile - Funny!

grackle said...

Sure, the firing looked inept.

I respectfully disagree. The method was a message.

One minute you are flying high, creating headlines, regaling congressional committees with pithy phrases(“slightly nauseous”) un-fire-able!, sound bites in prime time, in demand on the speech circuit and creating your own little fiefdom within the agency you head.

Next minute, you turn around during a public appearance and a CNN talking whore is announcing that your ass is unceremoniously dumped.

It couldn’t have worked out any better.

Trump to agency directors and other appointed employees:

You are not independent actors. You serve at the President’s discretion. If you are ordered, say, to provide to your boss the evidence of the illegal unmasking of American citizens gathered by your agency – it might be a good idea to comply forthwith.

The firing was abrupt, unexpected and openly disrespectful. An object lesson, delivered exactly as drawn up. Inept it wasn’t.

It needs to be realized that contrary to appearances Trump does very little spontaneously. Unlike some pols Trump doesn’t usually telegraph his punches.

Inga said...

Now this is hilarious and somewhat disturbing. Was she joking?!

"Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Wednesday that it is “inappropriate” for the media to question the timing of President Donald Trump’s hiring and firing decisions in the executive branch."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/kellyanne-conway-reacts-james-comey-firing-238209

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sdharms said...

Grackle is SPOT ON. It was specific, measurable, articulable, related, time sensitive, and effective. It was a message.

khesanh0802 said...

Hypocrisy thy name is the Democratic Party. On November 6 Keith Olberman (you know he's a conservative) tweeted "

"Nope. Our one bipartisan moment. This man's position at the FBI is no longer tenable #FireComey"

I have been trying to find all those #firecomey tweets put up by Democrats. They have mysteriously disappeared. Here's a video of #firecomeys being deleted, Inga/ARM. Really!! It's on the Web ; it must be true.

khesanh0802 said...

@Comanche Voter I have been grappling for a day to find the description of Comey that you so accurately posted at 1134. The man would have been "fragged" in a combat zone. The troops are hard to fool - superiors not so much.

Michael K said...

This sounds about right. Trump waited until Rosenstein was in place before firing Comey.

The structure was this: The FBI director reported to the deputy attorney general, who reported to the attorney general, who reported to the president. When Trump fired Comey Tuesday afternoon, that chain of command had been in place for all of 14 days.

First, it took a long time to get an attorney general in office. Facing Democratic opposition, Jeff Sessions, one of the president's first nominees, was not confirmed by the Senate until Feb. 8. Then, it took a long time to get a deputy attorney general in place. Rod Rosenstein, the deputy — and the man who wrote the rationale for axing Comey — faced similar Democratic delays and was not sworn in until April 26.

Only after Rosenstein was in place did the Trump team move ahead.


The leftist hysteria, as well seen here in comments, will accomplish nothing but make them look even more ridiculous.

khesanh0802 said...

@grackle Astute.

grackle said...

… the quote isn't mine, it's from a right wing publication. Read more carefully.

As a rule and as a Trump supporter I don’t pay much attention to NeverTrump blogs such as the one referred to above. I can get the same anti-Trump talking points a lot easier simply by tuning into any of the cables.

Michael K said...

Comey and his shenanigans protecting James Comey's reputation cost him the respect of the agents in the FBI.

Yes, and this is why I think he was pressed to move in July and October by an incipient agent revolt.

khesanh0802 said...

@original Mike Trey Gowdy asked him that question as he ran Comey over the coals.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Wednesday that it is “inappropriate” for the media to question the timing of President Donald Trump’s hiring and firing decisions in the executive branch."

-- Meh. Trump's got nothing on trying to intimidate the press until he uses trumped up charges to get them to reveal sources and illegally wiretaps them. If Conway wants to talk tough, that's fine. The last presidency showed us the limits you can go with the press before it is problematic.

khesanh0802 said...

For those who haven't read the Rosenstein memo Here's the BBC's copy.

MikeR said...

Yeah, it's fun to play "Let's make up an unflattering reason for why Trump did __". But in the end, the FBI Director's is a political appointee and the job belongs to President Trump. Democrats and others would like to tie his hands and take away as many of his tools as they can reach. Unlike many other politicians, he's someone who will tell them to go jump.

Michael K said...

"the FBI Director's is a political appointee and the job belongs to President Trump."

I think he has a ten year term and must have reasons to be fired, which he had.

MikeR said...

"must have reasons to be fired, which he had" Certainly Stephen Colbert's audience thought so.

Original Mike said...

Trey Gowdy. Thanks, 0802.

Original Mike said...

"Days before he was fired, former FBI Director James Comey asked the Department of Justice for additional funding and personnel to expand its inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the New York Times reports."

Well, if he needed the money to include investigation of the Clinton's ties to Russia I'd be all for it.

Matthew Sablan said...

Will the Democrats finally let the FBI see the computers that they claim were hacked? If not, that's the end of the Russia investigation as the prime pieces of physical evidence are not available to us.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Mind you, Republicans turned over systems that someone, maybe Russia, attempted to hack/compromise. An important fact that cuts harshly against the "Russia tried to help Republicans" narrative.]

Original Mike said...

@Matthew - I'd bet the farm they've been wiped.

Matthew Sablan said...

OM: Probably. But the Democrats stymied any real investigation into the hacks; what more do they expect the FBI to find if they can't examine the physical evidence?

Original Mike said...

"But the Democrats stymied any real investigation into the hacks; what more do they expect the FBI to find if they can't examine the physical evidence?"

The Democrats are disingenuous (as I'm sure you're aware). The lack of evidence let's them spin their conspiracy theories forever.

But your point is an excellent one. The new FBI Director should demand they hand over the evidence.

richard mcenroe said...

TOUGH QUESTION: Will Comey get a big bucks NY tell-all book deal because Trump fired him or be blacklisted because he cost Hillary the election? Beinga liberal is HARD...

Johnny Sokko said...

Inga and A Reasonable Man are going to have to get tin foil linings for those pussy hats.

grackle said...

I think he has a ten year term and must have reasons to be fired, which he had.

There’s a ten year limit but the FBI Director has no tenure. FBI Directors can be “removed” by their superiors before the term limit is reached – as we have just witnessed. Reasons? But of course. There’s always reasons when someone is fired.

Original Mike said...

In fact, why aren't there subpeonas for the DNC servers? They're evidence in an investigation of Treason!

Original Mike said...

Sean Spicer is not doing today's briefing? What's up with that?

Breezy said...

This whole affair is Hillary's fault. Her email, her obfuscations, her lust for power, her corruption all brought this about - putting people in impossible positions, reducing the trust of the nation in one of its most prized government agencies. Shame on her and all who went along with her.

Its completely appropriate that her case be cited in the firing.

Kevin said...

"Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Wednesday that it is “inappropriate” for the media to question the timing of President Donald Trump’s hiring and firing decisions in the executive branch."

Well it was racist to question Obama's so we're heading in the right direction.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Comey's transgression was, as I see it arrogance. arrogation of power, excessive prosecutorial discretion.

He tried to, and possibly did, control the election by controlled release of information. But that was not his job. His job was to follow the law, which beyond reasonable doubt was to prosecute Hillary! and probably a half dozen other highly positioned appointed officials.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 318   Newer› Newest»